FA9401-17-R-0002_Amendment_1.docx

FA9401-17-R-0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 1

The following outlines the changes as a result of amendment 1:

a. Attachment 2, 52.212-1, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, Table 2-2, Proposal Organization shall change the page limit for the Past Perfermance volume from 12 to 25 pages.

b. Attachment 2, 52.212-1, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, para 2.3 Electronic Labeling of Offers; shall add Adobe Acrobat XI Pro as an acceptabe for electronic copies.

c. 52.212-2 Page 22 of the Solicitation or Evaluation Factor Section (c)(2)(ii): has been changed from: “Efforts by the prime offeror of at least $4M per year over a minimum 5-year period of performance are considered relevant.” to: "Efforts comparable to the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the projected amount of work for this requirement are considered relevant."

d. Attachment 2, 52.212-1, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, para 2.2.1(b) Legible tables, charts has been changed from “…For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be 12 font” to: “For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be clearly legible”

e. Attachment 2, para 4.2.3(3) Subfactor 3, Total Compensation Plan for Professional Employees the following has been added: “The total compensation plan required by FAR 52.222-46 shall be submitted as part of Volume II and shall be no more than twenty-five (25) pages which is counted in the 70 page limit outlined in Table 2.2.”

f. Attachment 2, 52.212-1, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, Table 2-2, Proposal Organization shall change the page limit for the Technical/Technical Risk volume from 45 to 70 pages.

g. SF 1449 Continuation Sheet, CLIN 0002 changed quantity from 11 months to 7 months

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0002

The pricing detail quantity has decreased by 4.00 from 11.00 to 7.00.

DELIVERIES AND PERFORMANCE

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0002 has been changed from:

POP 01-SEP-2017 TO

31-MAR-2018

KAY ARMSTRONG

9700 G AVE SE BLDG 24499

KIRTLAND AFB NM 87117

505-853-2607 FOB: Destination

F2KDAC

To:

POP 01-SEP-2017 TO

31-MAR-2018

KAY ARMSTRONG

9700 G AVE SE BLDG 24499

KIRTLAND AFB NM 87117

505-853-2607 FOB: Destination

F2KDAC

The following have been modified:

52.212-2 - Evaluation Factors for Award

a. 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), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price. Contract(s) 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 (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by 52.212-1 of this solicitation) 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 and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team 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.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the IRIS Program.

c. 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. 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. Note that all responses to ENs shall be considered as modifications to the initial proposal.

EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

(1) The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Software Subfactor 2: Sustainment and Maintenance Subfactor 3: Total Compensation Plan for Professional Employees.

Subfactor 4: Extent of Participation of Small Business Concerns

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical, Past Performance and Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical) being most important, Factor 2 (Past Performance) next in importance and Factor 3 (Price) is last in importance. Within the Technical Factor, the subfactors are in descending order of importance.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are: significantly more important than price. An unacceptable rating in any factor or subfactor will render the proposal unawardable.

b. Technical Factor The Technical evaluation provides for two (2) distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two (2) ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor and shall be rated separately.

(1) Technical Rating. The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactors 1 through 3 will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2A – Technical Ratings, excerpted below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

Description

Technical

Subfactor 1: Software. The contractor clearly described how the proposed flight data analysis software tool set and proposed analysts will continue current MFOQA analyses by clearly addressing all the elements of Addendum FAR 52.212-1 paragraph 4.2.3(1) and the PWS.

Subfactor 2: Sustainment and Maintenance. The contractor's written description demonstrated a clear understanding of the requirements to sustain and maintain the IRIS system as identified in Addendum FAR 52.212-1 paragraph 4.2.3(2) and the PWS.

Subfactor 3: Total Compensation Plan for Professional Employees. The offeror’s Compensation Plan for Professional Employees as described in FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, provides a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements to attract and retain competent professional service employees and thereby provide uninterrupted, high-quality work. 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.

Subfactor 4: This subfactor applies to every offeror, regardless of size-status. This Subfactor shall be rated in accordance with Table 6 below and will not receive a rating in accordance with Table 2A of this RFP.

Table 6. Small Business Rating Method

Description

To meet the objective and to receive an acceptable rating or higher the offeror is required to commit to subcontract at least one of the small business categories identified in 52.212-1, paragraph 4.2.3(4)(1. Note that if the offeror is a small business itself it will meet the objective just by including itself in that commitment.

NOTE: The Small Business Participation Plan of an awardee who is not a small business concern shall be incorporated into the awardee’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The Small Business Participation Plan of an awardee who is a small business concern shall be incorporated as a separate attachment in the IRIS contract. The Small Business Subcontracting Plans will not be assessed as part of this factor.

(2) Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The Technical subfactors will receive one (1) of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2B – Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

c. Past Performance Factor The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

1. Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one (1) of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

(2) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in paragraph 2 of the Evaluation Factors. 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 volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i) 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 this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor, including their relative order of importance (reference paragraph 2 of the Evaluation Factors). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of magnitude will be assessed. Efforts comparable to the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the projected amount of work for this requirement are considered relevant. The SSEB will conduct and in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information and will consider information relating to the similarity of scope, magnitude, and complexities of the effort including but not limited to the technical requirements (Software as it relates to the MFOQA GOTS currently in place, Sustainment and Maintenance, Extent of Participation of Small Business Concerns, and program management, contract type, contract value, contract term, compliance with subcontract requirements, etc.). 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. 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) who have relevant experience and will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4):

(3) Assigning 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 Technical 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 recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance 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.

d. Price Factor

(1) Price will be evaluated for reasonableness and balanced pricing. This evaluation shall include all options plus the amount calculated for option(s) under 52.217-8 addressed below.

For evaluation purposes only the option under 52.217-8 will be evaluated by dividing the total proposed price for Option Year IV by two (2) to represent the six (6) months additional performance under the clause upon execution of 52.217-8 if needed.

(2) Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

(3) Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

(4) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

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.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf