Amendment_0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

This amendment revises the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation Commercial Items, paragraph (a)(5) Price Factor.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 5

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 01-Jun-2016

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X HTC711-16-R-R015

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

17-May-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

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 Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer 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 1 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 MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

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

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, 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.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

01-Jun-2016

CODE

USTRANSCOM-AQ - HTC711

508 SCOTT DR

SCOTT AFB IL 62225-5357

HTC711 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HTC711-16-R-R015

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(a) The Government intends to award one contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

FACTOR 1 – Technical Capability

SUBFACTOR 1 - Technical Approach SUBFACTOR 2 - Cyber Security

FACTOR 2 – Past Performance

FACTOR 3 – Price

(1) The Government will conduct a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to price considerations. The Government will conduct a Best Value, Performance-Price Tradeoff (PPTO) source selection in accordance with FAR Part 12, FAR 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process, FAR Part 19, and DoD Source Selection Procedures with the objective of selecting the offeror that represents the best value to the Government considering price and non-price factors.

(2) The following conditions shall be met in order to be eligible for award, estimated for 22 September 2016:

The offeror must be determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104.

Pursuant to 32 CFR §861.4, the offeror must be a DoD approved air carrier for the aircraft offered at the time of proposal submission.

The offeror’s proposal must comply with requirements of law, regulation, and all conditions set forth in the solicitation. The offeror’s proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature and scope of work required. Failure to provide a reasonable and complete proposal may reflect lack of understanding of the work requirements of the contract and may result in a determination that the proposal is unacceptable. The Government does not assume a duty to search for clarification data to cure problems or inconsistencies with an offeror’s proposal.

Other information submitted by the offeror must comply with the conditions set forth in the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to make the final determination as to whether the other information complies with the conditions set forth in the solicitation.

(3) The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without conducting discussions. The Contracting Officer may limit the competitive range for purposes of efficiency. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, written and/or oral, with offerors if determined to be in the Government’s best interest.

(4) The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed overall price. The Government will reserve the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals submitted and availability of funds.

(5) The evaluation will proceed as follows: All technical proposals will be evaluated. All Technical subfactors will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. Price will be evaluated but not rated for all offerors. Past performance will be rated on an adjectival basis and will be weighted approximately equal to price. If the lowest-priced technically acceptable offeror receives a Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, that offeror represents the best value to the Government and the evaluation stops at that point. No trade-off will be made and award will be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offerors. In the event that the Government does not make an award pursuant to the above, the next lowest-priced technically acceptable offeror will be evaluated for Past Performance and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror receives a Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating of Substantial Confidence or until all offerors are evaluated. The Government will then conduct an integrated assessment of all offers evaluated and will make a best value decision considering all evaluation criteria. Award will be made to the offeror determined to provide the best value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to award to a higher price, technically acceptable offeror when the offeror’s past performance confidence assessment is rated higher than the lower cost offeror’s past performance confidence assessment rating. However, the Government will not pay a price premium that it considers disproportionate with the margin of increased past performance confidence rating. The Government’s rationale for any price and past performance trade-off will be thoroughly documented. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal conforms to the requirements specified in the Request for Proposal (RFP) and which provides the best value to the Government; price and other factors considered.

Technical Evaluation Factor: The Government will evaluate the Technical proposals at the subfactor level with each subfactor assigned a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as defined below. (An overall factor-level rating will not be assigned). Technically unacceptable offers will not be considered for award.

RATING DEFINITION

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

Acceptable –

For Subfactor 1, Technical Approach – To be rated Acceptable, the offeror’s proposed technical approach shall clearly describe the techniques and procedures required for achieving the objectives identified in the PWS, and demonstrates the offeror’s ability to comply with these PWS requirements. The offeror’s certification documentation must be current and complete demonstrating their ability to comply with the requirements of this solicitation. The proposed aircraft must be on the offeror’s Operations Specification at the time of proposal submission.

For Subfactor 2, Cyber Security – For any offeror-identified NIST SP 800-171 requirement that will not be implemented, the offeror has explained how the security requirement is not applicable, or how an alternative control or protective measure is used to achieve equivalent protections. The offeror’s explanation provides assurance that implementation of their information systems security without a specific control (or controls), or use of an equivalent control should be effective in protecting DoD information from unauthorized disclosure.

Past Performance Factor: Using the Past Performance Questionnaires submitted by the offeror’s Points of Contact and other information independently obtained from Government or commercial sources, the Government will assign an overall Confidence Assessment Rating on each offeror that submits an acceptable technical proposal. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in the solicitation based on the offerors’ demonstrated present and past performance.

The Government will first determine the recency and the relevancy of each past performance effort being evaluated. To be considered recent, the effort must be currently on-going or have been completed within three (3) years of the solicitation close date. Past performance information submitted which exceeds the three (3) year limitation will not be considered.

The Government will perform an independent assessment of relevancy of the data provided or obtained.

The relevancy of each contract reference will be considered in the overall confidence assessment rating for the offeror. Any references determined not recent will not be evaluated for relevancy. The following definitions will be utilized to determine the relevancy of each past performance effort:

RATING DESCRIPTION

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

After the Government has determined the recency and relevancy of each past performance effort being evaluated, one of the following overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings will be assigned to each offeror:

RATING DESCRIPTION

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s 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.

Offerors with no recent/relevant performance record shall receive the rating “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)”, which shall be considered neither favorably nor unfavorably. In evaluating past performance, the government will give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in the solicitation.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in FAR 52.212-1. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g., relevance of past performance information). Offerors will be provided an opportunity to address any adverse past performance information not previously addressed.

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.

Price Factor: The Government will determine whether the proposed unit prices for all CLINs are fair and reasonable. The fair and reasonable determination will be accomplished by conducting a price analysis using one or more of the techniques set forth in FAR 15.404-1(b). The Contracting Officer will fully document the price evaluation.

The EST AMOUNT for each CLIN will be determined by multiplying the EST QUANTITY of each requirement identified in Attachment 4 by the proposed UNIT PRICE, excluding reimbursables. The Government will calculate a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each offeror. The TEP will be the summation of the EST AMOUNT for each CLIN, excluding reimbursables, plus the amount for a six month extension calculated in accordance with FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. Consistent with FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, the 6-month extension will be evaluated using the UNIT PRICES included in Option Year Four. Fuel efficiency of each offeror’s aircraft will be evaluated indirectly.

Adequate price competition is expected utilizing FAR Part 12 procedures; therefore, certified cost or pricing data will not be requested. However, should the Contracting Officer make a determination during the evaluation process that adequate price competition does not exist, other than certified cost or pricing information may be requested for evaluation purposes along with comparing proposed prices to other commercial prices paid or historical data to assist in negotiations and/or the price reasonableness determination.

(b) Options: The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of Summary of Changes)