FA9401-15-R-8019-0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

See Block #2

PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

25 FEB 2015

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ.NO.

5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY PZID CODE FA9401 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

AFNWC/PZIE

8500 GIBSON BLVD SE BLDG 20202

KIRTLAND AFB NM 87117

LISA D. POSTMA 505-846-4362

LISA.POSTMA@US.AF.MIL

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

FA9401-15-R-8019

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 Page 2

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)

LISA D. POSTMA

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 6.14.1 FAR (48 CFR) 53.243 Created 25 Feb 2015 5:26 PM

SCHEDULE

FA9401-15-R-8019 0002

Purpose: Correct language regarding relevancy of past performance.

1. Reference to "Firm Fixed price" is hereby removed in the fourth sentence of Attachment 4, 52.212-1 Addendum, paragraph 2.4.2. The fourth sentence of the paragraph is revised as follows:

FROM: Relevant contracts include Firm Fixed price Technical Order Support or Logistics Management Administrative Support service contracts that involved similar scope, magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

TO: Relevant contracts include Technical Order Support or Logistics Management Administrative Support service contracts that involved similar scope, magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

2. Reference to "Firm Fixed price" is hereby removed in the first sentence of Attachment 5, 52.212-2 Addendum, paragraph 2.6.2. The first sentence of the paragraph is revised as follows:

FROM: Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving Firm Fixed price Technical Order Support or Logistics Management Administrative Support service contracts that involved similar scope, magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

TO: Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving Technical Order Support or Logistics Management Administrative Support service contracts that involved similar scope, magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

3. The following attachments are hereby revised to incorporate the above changes:

a. Attachment 4 FROM: 52.212-1 Addendum dated 20 FEB 15 TO: 52.212-1 Addendum dated 25 FEB 15

b. Attachment 5 FROM: 52.212-2 Addendum dated 5 FEB 15 TO: 52.212-2 Addendum dated 25 FEB 15

4. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Attachment 4 - Page 1 of 13

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE

PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD, BUT WILL BE DEEMED

INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.

52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

Addendum to 52.212-1(c), Period for Acceptance of Offers. The paragraph is tailored as follows:

“The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 90 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.”

ADDENDA TO 52.212-1, PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1. Notice to Offerors: Funds are not presently available for this effort. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available. The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date. In the event the

Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an offeror for any costs. Funding is anticipated to be available prior to the estimated award date of 31 Mar 15.

1.2. To be considered for award, the contractor shall submit a written proposal no later than 4:30

PM MST on 26 FEB 15.

1.3. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The response shall consist of three (3) separate parts; Part I - Price Proposal, Part II -

Technical Proposal, and Part III - Past Performance Information.

1.4. Electronic Offer. The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. Indicate each part number and title. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, exhibits, annexes and attachments, if any. Parts I, II, and III shall be submitted in Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel or Adobe PDF format as appropriate. All parts may be submitted on a single CD. Amendments may be submitted via email to the

Contracting Officer.

1.5. The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit file://periwinkle_vnx/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/Templates%20Project%20--%20Sep%202013/5315/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/far/FAR15.DOC%23b154062

Attachment 4 - Page 2 of 13 cost data to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness of the price.

1.6. Discrepancies. If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall notify the CO in writing, NLT 4 FEB

15, 4:00PM MST, with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is asking the CO to consider as related to the omission or error. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposals, as received, without discussion.

1.7. The Contracting Officer (CO) is the single points of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have the CO. Email requests for clarification should be sent the CO Ms. Lisa Postma at lisa.postma@us.af.mil. All questions regarding the solicitation should be submitted NLT 4 FEB 15, 4:00 PM MST.

2. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

2.1. Two Awards. The Air Force intends to award two separate contracts as a result of the issuance of this solicitation. Offerors may choose to submit a proposal for Technical Order

Support (Attachment 1), Logistics Management Administrative Support (Attachment 2) or both.

If offerors choose to submit proposals for both efforts, then two separate proposals must be submitted. Do not combine both efforts into a single proposal. If an offeror is awarded both efforts, two separate contracts will still be issued. The page limitations identified below apply to each separate proposal.

2.2. PART I – PRICE PROPOSAL - Submit original, one (1) paper copy and one (1) electronic copy via CD

2.2.1. Complete blocks 12, 17a, and 30a, b, and c of the SF1449. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the SOLICITATION, with attachments. The awardees of both efforts will be required to sign a contract which will remove references to the other effort.

2.2.2. Insert proposed unit and extended prices in the Pricing Schedule. The proposed Pricing

Schedule shall include the monthly unit price and total extended price for each CLIN. The extended amount must equal the whole dollar unit price multiplied by the number of units. The proposal(s) must be submitted for a 1 month transition, 11 month base period, four 12 month option periods and one 6 month extension of services option. The proposed pricing for Travel

CLINS shall be the dollar value currently stated in each of the Travel CLINS.

2.2.3. For each CLIN which includes labor costs, the offeror shall separately identify the proposed labor category (IAW paragraph 2.3.1.1.2. below) and the proposed labor rate and

Health and Welfare rate. If an offerors technical approach proposes labor categories that are not subject to the Department of Labor (DOL) Wage Determination (Attachment 6), the offeror shall provide justification as to why these labor categories should be excluded. The offeror does not mailto:lisa.postma@us.af.mil http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/formslibrary.do?viewType=DETAIL&formId=E331497A1FE0AE1F85256A260055A47B

Attachment 4 - Page 3 of 13 need to include labor rate and Health and Welfare rate for non DOL Wage Determination labor categories.

2.2.4. Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in the provisions. The provisions and

FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items, shall be returned along with the proposal.

2.3 PART II – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL – Limited to no more than 10 pages. Submit original, three (3) paper copies and one (1) electronic copy via CD.

The Technical Section should be specific and complete as it demonstrates an understanding of the requirements. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. Your responses will be evaluated against the Technical Acceptability criteria 52.212-2 Addendum.

2.3.1. Sub-factor 1: Management

2.3.1.1. Staffing Plan. Personnel, qualifications and experience synopses shall be clearly identified throughout the plan and demonstrate support of the requirements. At a minimum, the plan shall include:

2.3.1.1.1. An organizational chart identifying all proposed labor categories, Full Time

Equivalents (FTEs), and flow of authority.

2.3.1.1.2. The offeror shall describe each proposed labor category and cross reference it to the appropriate Department of Labor Wage Determination labor category (Attachment 6). Cross referencing is not required for non DOL Wage Determination labor categories.

2.3.1.1.3. Experience synopsis for each person filling a position in PWS (either Attachment 1 or 2), Table 1 Contractor Personnel Categories. The experience synopsis shall demonstrate how the personnel meet the minimum position qualifications, security requirements and experience requirements. Experience synopsis shall not exceed one page per proposed person. All experience synopsis are excluded from the overall page limits.

2.3.1.1.4. The offeror shall provide a letter of intent to accept employment signed by each person filling a position identified in the PWS; Table 1 Contractor Personnel Categories (applies to both Attachments 1 and 2). All letters of intent are excluded from the overall page limits.

2.3.1.1.5. The offeror shall describe their plan to identify, obtain, retain or acquire new personnel, ensuring no more than a two week vacancy for personnel identified in the PWS, Table

1 Contractor Personnel Categories (applies to both Attachment 1 and 2).

2.3.1.2. The offeror shall provide a Transition Plan which provides for full performance on 1

MAY 15. The plan shall specifically address how security clearance requirements identified in file://periwinkle_vnx/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/Templates%20Project%20--%20Sep%202013/5315/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/far/FAR52.000.doc%23b522123

Attachment 4 - Page 4 of 13 the PWS (Attachment 1 para 1.4.3.3., Attachment 2 para 1.8.3.) and the DD Form 254 - Contract

Security Classification Specification, will be met at the start of full performance on 1 MAY 15.

2.3.1.3. The offeror, if other than a small business (SB), shall submit a Small Business

Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 52.219-9 that identifies and specifies the extent of offeror’ s commitment to the participation of all required small businesses and socio-economic categories whether as joint venture members, teaming arrangement partners, or subcontractors. IAW

AFFARS 5319.704(a)(1) Small Business subcontracting goals must be expressed in terms of percent of contract value in addition to percent of subcontracted amount. If applicable, submit a copy of your approved Master Plan. In the event the offeror has negotiated a comprehensive subcontracting plan pursuant to DFARS 219.702, the offeror must submit the information that identifies and specifies the extent of its commitment to the participation of all required small businesses and socio economic categories. The Small Business Plan is excluded from overall page limits.

2.3.1.4. The offeror shall assert that they have a Top Secret Facility Clearance as required by

Attachment 3, DD254 DoD Contract Security Classification Specification.

2.3.2 Sub-factor 2: Technical Approach

2.3.2.1. The offeror shall provide their technical approach for accomplishing all requirements described in either Attachment 1 or 2.

2.3.2.1.1 Attachment 1 Proposals - The technical approach shall specifically address how the offeror will perform Technical Order Support requirements to include Work

Assignment/Completion, Formatting, Administrative support and quality assurance.

2.3.2.1.2 Attachment 2 Proposals – The technical approach shall specifically address how the offeror will assist Government logistic program managers in administering their programs, perform budgeting, accomplish research and analyses, utilize automated DoD logistics systems and perform quality assurance.

2.4. PART III – PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION - Limited to no more than three

(3) pages per contract listed. Only references for relevant past efforts/contracts are desired.

Submit original, three (3) paper copies, plus one (1) electronic copy via CD. Customer responses to past performance questionnaires are not included in the page limits.

2.4.1. Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts On-Going and Completed in the Past

Three Years: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of product for relevant on-going or past efforts/contracts (similar in scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires). In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc.

Attachment 4 - Page 5 of 13

2.4.2. Performance Surveys: The government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror's performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFP. The government will use information submitted by the offeror and any other sources of information available to the

Government to assess past performance. Provide a list of no more than three (3) , of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three

(3) years. Relevant contracts include Technical Order Support or Logistics Management

Administrative Support service contracts that involved similar scope, magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. Furnish the following information for each contract listed:

(i) Company/Division name

(ii) Product/Service

(iii) Contracting Agency/Customer

(iv) Contract Number

(v) Contract Dollar Value

(vi) Period of Performance

(vii) Verified, up-to-date name, address, FAX & telephone number of the contracting officer

(viii) Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

(ix) Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

2.4.3. Each offeror is requested to submit the past performance information shown above in paragraph 2.4.2. for each relevant contract by 17 FEB 15, 4:00 MST. Failure to submit early proposal information will not result in offeror disqualification. However, late submittal of any portion of the required proposal submissions beyond the proposed due date will result in offeror disqualification. As soon as practicable, offerors shall complete Section 1 of the attached Past

Performance Questionnaire (Attachment A) and email it along with an offeror-generated cover letter to all points of contact (POCs) the offeror has listed in the past performance information.

The POCs will complete the questionnaires and forward them by mail or email, directly to the

Contracting Officer, Ms. Lisa Postma. COs mail and email addresses are listed at the end of

Attachment A, the Past Performance Questionnaire. RESPONDENTS TO THE

QUESTIONNAIRES SHALL NOT SEND THE COMPLETED INFORMATION SHEETS

BACK TO THE OFFEROR. The Government may conduct follow-up with any POC as necessary.

2.4.4. If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past relevant contracts. Even with teaming arrangements or joint ventures, each proposal shall not contain more than three relevant past performance contracts as identified in paragraph 2.4.2. above.

Attachment 4 - Page 6 of 13

2.4.5. Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

2.5 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Documents submitted in response to this RFP must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:

2.5.1 Requirements of the RFP (CLINs & PWS) and government standards and regulations pertaining to the PWS.

2.5.2. Evaluation Factors for Award in FAR 52.212-2 Addendum of this solicitation.

2.5.3. Any limitation on the number of proposal pages. Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth in this Section will not be read or evaluated, and will be removed from the proposal.

2.5.4. Format for proposal Parts II and III shall be as follows:

2.5.4.1. The proposals will be 8 1/2” x 11” paper except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams, which may not exceed 11” x 17”.

2.5.4.2. A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information.

2.5.4.3. Typing shall not be less than 12 pitch.

2.5.4.4. Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are not desired or required.

2.5.5. Information Regarding Submission of Proposals.

2.5.5.1. Offerors are cautioned that Kirtland AFB, NM has visitor control procedures requiring individuals not affiliated with the installation to obtain a visitor pass prior to entrance. SOME

DELAY SHOULD BE ANTICIPATED WHEN HAND CARRYING PROPOSALS. Offerors should allow sufficient time to obtain a visitor pass and arrive at the Contracting Officer’s office

PRIOR to the time specified for receipt. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with

FAR 52.212-1(f) “Late submission, modifications, revisions, and withdrawals of offers.”

2.5.5.2. FEDERAL HOLIDAYS: The following Federal Legal Holidays are observed by this base:

New Year’s Day 1 January

Martin Luther King’s Birthday Third Monday in January

Presidents Day Third Monday in February

Memorial Day Last Monday in May

Independence Day 4 July

Labor Day First Monday in September

Columbus Day Second Monday in October

Veterans Day 11 November file://periwinkle_vnx/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/Templates%20Project%20--%20Sep%202013/5315/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/far/FAR52.000.doc%23b522121

Attachment 4 - Page 7 of 13

Thanksgiving Day Fourth Thursday in November

Christmas Day 25 December

2.5.6. JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENTS - Joint Ventures are allowable on competitive 8(a) set-asides, however, the joint venture agreement must be received by SBA prior to proposal due date and approved before award of any resulting contract. If you are contemplating a joint venture on this project, you must advise your assigned SBA Business Opportunity Specialist

(BOS) as soon as possible. It is also recommended that the agreement be submitted as soon as practicable to ensure compliance with established regulations. Any corrections and/or changes needed can be made only when your BOS has adequate time for a thorough review before the proposal due date. NO CORRECTIONS AND/OR CHANGES ARE ALLOWED AFTER TIME

OF SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL OR BIDS.

Attachment 4 - Page 8 of 13

FAR 52.212-1 Attachment A

PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)

Revised 15 JAN 15

WHEN FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION IAW FAR

2.101 & 3.104

SECTION 1: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

A. Contractor (Company/Division):______________________________________________________

B. Contractor Cage Code: ____________________________________________________

C. Program Name:__________________________________________________________

D. Contract number: _________________________________________________________

D. Contract type (e.g., FFP, FPIF, CPIF, CPFF): ___________________________________

E. Was this a competitive contract? Yes _____ No _____

F. Period of performance: _______________________________________________________

G. Initial contract price: $________________________________________________________

H. Current/final contract price: $___________________________________________________

I. Reasons for differences between initial contract price and current/final contract price:

J. Description of service provided:

Attachment 4 - Page 9 of 13

SECTION 2: RESPONDENT(S) TO QUESTIONNAIRE

A. Name(s):

B. Phone Number(s): ______

C. Email Address: ______________________________________________________________

C. Position (e.g., Program Manager, PCO/ACO):

D. Other suggested points of contact: _______ ______

SECTION 3: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Please indicate your performance rating for the contractor’s by circling or place an “X” over the appropriate code using the performance evaluation scale below. Ratings are defined as follows:

CODE PERFORMANCE RATING

B BLUE/EXCEPTIONAL - During the entire period, the contractor met and exceeded many of the requirements of the contract and consistently performed at a superior level.

Performance was accomplished with very few minor problems, and the contractor took immediate and effective corrective actions for those problems that did occur.

P PURPLE/VERY GOOD - During the entire period, the contractor met and exceeded some of the requirements of the contract and consistently performed very well.

Performance was accomplished with some minor problems, and the contractor took timely and effective corrective action for those problems that did occur.

G GREEN/SATISFACTORY - During the entire period, the contractor met the requirements of the contract and consistently performed at an acceptable level.

Performance was accomplished with some problems, and the contractor took effective corrective action for those problems that did occur.

Y YELLOW/MARGINAL – During the entire period, the contractor did not always meet some of the requirements of the contract and intervention was required to continue performance. There were instances where performance was at a less than acceptable level; performance was accomplished with some problems and some corrective actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

R RED/UNSATISFACTORY – During the entire period, the contractor did not meet the requirements of the contract and performance was at an unacceptable level. There were a number of serious problems that required extensive oversight and involvement, and corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent.

N/A NOT APPLICABLE - Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect, or information was not available. Do not know.

Attachment 4 - Page 10 of 13

Respondents should explain their rating in the remarks section for any rating that might contradict official

Past Performance documentation (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs)). If more space is needed, remarks may be continued on separate pages- please identify question number.

1. Management - How effective was the contractor’s ability to provide qualified personnel with the appropriate skill mix and security clearances to meet program requirements, provide problem resolution and communicate effectively?

B P G Y R N/A

REMARKS:

2. Management - How effective was the contractor’s ability to effectively retain employees and minimize vacancy time?

3. Transition - How effective was the contractor’s ability to provide uninterrupted service and qualified personnel with the appropriate skill mix and security clearances to meet program requirements on the first day of performance?

4. Small Business Subcontracting Goals - How successful was the contractor with setting and meeting subcontracting goals?

Attachment 4 - Page 11 of 13

5. Price Performance – How effective was the contractor to provide above satisfactory services within the constraints of a Firm Fixed Price Contract?

6. Technical Order (TO) Support - How effective was the contractor in performing the following tasks:

a. Meeting assigned suspense B P G Y R N/A

b. Quality Assurance B P G Y R N/A

c. Follow specified formatting processes B P G Y R N/A

d. Graphic Maintenance B P G Y R N/A

e. Digital Format Preparation B P G Y R N/A

f. TO Distribution B P G Y R N/A

g. Administrative & Library Support B P G Y R N/A

7. Logistics Management Administrative Support – How effective was the contractor in performing the following tasks:

a. Administrative Support B P G Y R N/A

b. Budgeting Support B P G Y R N/A

c. Research & Analysis B P G Y R N/A

d. Use of Automated Logistics Systems B P G Y R N/A

e. Quality Assurance B P G Y R N/A

Attachment 4 - Page 12 of 13

SECTION 4: GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS ONLY

A. Was this contract partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations?

Yes___ Default___ Convenience___ Pending Terminations___ No ___

B. If yes, please explain (e.g., inability to meet cost, performance, or delivery schedules).

SECTION 5: GENERAL COMMENT

A. Given what I know today about the contractor’s ability to execute what was promised in the proposal, I (choose one of the following) award to the contractor today given that I had a choice.

definitely would_____ probably would _____ might or might not _____ probably would not _____ definitely would not _____

B. Please explain any reservations about awarding to the contractor in the future or having them perform one of your critical and demanding programs?

C. Please provide any additional comments concerning this contractor’s performance, as desired.

Attachment 4 - Page 13 of 13

Evaluator’s Signature Date

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!

Please return this completed questionnaire to:

E-Mail to:

Ms. Lisa Postma, Contracting Officer at lisa.postma@us.af.mil

Mail to: Ms. Lisa Postma

AFNWC/PZIE

8500 Gibson Blvd SE

Kirtland AFB, NM 87117 mailto:lisa.postma@us.af.mil

Attachment 5 - Page 1 of 4

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. All technically acceptable offers will be considered technically equal. The tradeoff will occur only between the past performance factor and the price factor. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows.

1.2. Two Awards: The Air Force intends to award two separate contracts as a result of the issuance of this solicitation. Proposals for either Technical Order Support (Attachment 1) or

Logistics Management Administrative Support (Attachment 2) will be evaluated separately. If a single offeror is awarded both efforts, two separate contracts will still be issued.

1.3. The government intends to evaluate proposals and award the two contracts without clarifications/discussions. The government reserves the right to conduct clarification/discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

1.4. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in FAR

52.212-1 Addendum. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their offer (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

1.5. 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. If the offeror’ s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

2.0. EVALUATION CRITERIA

2.1. For each effort, the government intends to evaluate the three lowest total evaluated priced offers first. Technical Acceptability will be evaluated next. If at least three, technically acceptable offers have not been identified, then the next lowest total evaluated price offer will be evaluated. The next lowest total evaluated priced offer will continue to be evaluated until there

Attachment 5 - Page 2 of 4 are at least three technically acceptable offers. Finally a Performance Confidence Assessment will be accomplished for each technically acceptable offer. The Source Selection Authority reserves the right to continue the evaluations until more than three technically acceptable offers have been identified.

2.2. If the lowest priced 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 process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers. In the event, the lowest priced technically acceptable offer has less than a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment the

Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision, considering the proposals that have been evaluated.

2.3. The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer if the lowest priced offer is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of "Satisfactory

Confidence" or lower. In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

2.4. Price Evaluation. Initially, offers shall be ranked according by Total Evaluated Price, including all option prices. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in price list by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number or Subcontract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. The Total

Evaluated Price includes the extend price for each CLIN, stated price for Travel CLINs, and all options. Offerors whose total evaluated price is unreasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3), or unbalanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1) may not be considered for award. Offerors proposal must comply with 41 U.S.C. Chapter 67, Service Contract Labor

Standards. If applicable, offerors proposal adequately justified use of non Department of Labor

Wage Determination labor categories.

2.5. Technical Acceptability. Next, the government shall evaluate the technical proposals submitted by the lowest priced offerors, following the process identified in paragraph 2.1 above, on a pass/fail basis, assigning a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable described below to each subfactor. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following sub-factors. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable; therefore, unawardable. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Attachment 5 - Page 3 of 4

2.5.1. .Sub-factor 1: Management

2.5.1.1. The offeror’s staffing plan adequately addressed all required elements identified in FAR

52.212-1 Addendum Paragraph 2.3.1.1. (including sub paragraphs) and clearly demonstrated how the offeror’s proposed staff adequately supports the requirements of the PWS.

2.5.1.2. The offeror’s Transition Plan clearly and adequately demonstrated how full performance will be achieved by 1 MAY 15, including how all security clearance requirements will be met.

2.5.1.3. The offerors subcontracting plan, if required to submit, demonstrated compliance with all requirements identified in FAR 19.704 and 52.212-1 Addendum paragraph 2.3.1.3.

2.5.1.4. The offeror affirmatively asserted that they have a Top Secret Facility Clearance as required by Attachment 3, DD254 DoD Contract Security Classification Specification.

2.5.2. Sub-factor 2: Technical Approach The offerors’ technical approach clearly and adequately demonstrated how all requirements described in the PWS will be accomplished with specific attention addressing the requirements identified in FAR 52.212-1 Addendum para 2.3.2 for the appropriate Attachment.

2.6. Performance Confidence Assessment. Finally, the contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on the lowest priced, technically acceptable offers (IAW

Paragraph 2.1 above) for each effort based on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror, critical subcontractors, teaming partners and/or joint venture partners and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

2.6.1. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails these conditions will not be evaluated.

2.6.2. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving Technical Order Support or Logistics Management Administrative Support service contracts that involved similar scope, magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial

Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown

Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5, excerpted below. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be assessed as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf

Attachment 5 - Page 4 of 4

"Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably

(neutral).

2.6.3. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

Substantial

Confidence

Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited

Confidence

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

No

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown

Confidence

(Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned