HTC711-16-R-R018_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

The purpose of this Amendment is to correct the evaluation language in paragraph (a) 4 (D) Technical Subfactor 4 - Cyber Security of provision

52.212-2, Evaluation of Commercial Items.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 5

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Feb-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-R018

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Feb-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 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

08-Feb-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:

tccamede Typewritten Text

DENISE E CAMERON

tccamede Typewritten Text 618-220-7031 tccamede Typewritten Text denise.e.cameron.civ@mail.mil tccamede Typewritten Text tccamede Typewritten Text tccamede Typewritten Text tccamede Typewritten Text tccamede Typewritten Text

HTC711-16-R-R018

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items, revised

(a) This provision has been revised in its entirety. Evaluation will occur as follows:

(1) The Government will award a 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: Basic Eligibility

Factor 2: Price

Factor 3: Technical Capability

Factor 4: Past Performance

(A) This acquisition will be conducted as a Best Value, Performance Price Trade-off (PPTO) source selection IAW FAR Part 12, FAR 15.101-1 Trade-off Process, and DoD source selection procedures where Past

Performance is considered approximately equal to Price.

(B) The Government will evaluate proposals using a stepped evaluation approach. First, the Government will evaluate all offeror’s Basic Eligibility. All proposals determined to meet the Basic Eligibility requirements will proceed to the next step. Proposals which do not meet the Basic Eligibility requirements will be ineligible for award and will be eliminated from further evaluation. Next, all proposals meeting the Basic Eligibility requirements will be categorized by flag carrier status (US or Foreign). Proposals identified as US Flag (Category 1), will then be evaluated for Price and ranked in ascending order by Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Then, the Government will evaluate the Technical and Past Performance for the lowest priced offer. If the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal submitted by a US Flag carrier (Category 1) receives the highest Past Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating of Substantial, that proposal will be determined to represent the best value to the Government and award will be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

(C) In the event the lowest priced US Flag carrier (Category 1) offer is not technically acceptable, or does not receive a Substantial Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated for Technical Capability and Past Performance. This process will continue (in ascending order by price) until a technically acceptable proposal is assigned a Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of Substantial or all proposals are evaluated. If no technically acceptable, US Flag carrier (Category 1) proposal receives a

Substantial Confidence Assessment Rating, the Government will then conduct an integrated assessment of all evaluated Category 1 proposals to determine which offeror represents the best value to the Government.

(D) In the event the Government does not receive any proposals from US Flag carriers (Category 1) that meet all Basic Eligibility requirements, Foreign Flag carrier (Category 2) proposals meeting all Basic Eligibility requirements will be evaluated for Price, Technical Capability and Past Performance using the same stepped evaluation approach specified above.

(E) Award will be made to the offeror determined to provide the best value to the Government. This may result in 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 superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. However, the Government will not pay a price premium that it considers to be disproportionate to the benefits associated with the proposed margin of service superiority.

(2) Factor 1: Basic Eligibility: Proposals will first be evaluated to determine if they meet the basic eligibility requirements.

(A) Subfactor 1: Aircraft Operation. To meet this basic eligibility requirement, the Offeror must confirm it is the entity that will operate the proposed aircraft and that response must be consistent with other documents submitted with their proposal.

(B) Subfactor 2: CARB Approved Carrier. To meet this basic eligibility requirement, the Offeror must be on the CARB approved DOD air carrier listing maintained by US Air Force Air Mobility Command (AMC/A3B) at the time of proposal submission.

(C) Subfactor 3: Equivalent Service. To meet this basic eligibility requirement, the Government must determine the Offeror has at least 12 months of equivalent service. The determination will be obtained from

AMC/3B or from the Commercial Airlift Review Board (CARB). In the event of a discrepancy between the response provided by the offeror and the CARB, the CARB’s determination will take precedence.

(D) Subfactor 4: Fly America Act Preference. To meet this basic eligibility requirement, the Offeror shall be determined to be a Category 1 – US Flag carrier or Category 2 – Foreign Flag carrier. Under the Fly America

Act Preference, Category 1 carriers are preferred and therefore will be evaluated for Price, Technical Capability, and

Past Performance before any Category 2 carrier’s proposals are evaluated beyond Basic Eligibility. Further evaluation of Category 2 offers will not occur unless a Category 1 offer is not capable of fulfilling the Government’s requirement based upon all evaluation factors.

(3) Factor 2: Price. 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). Additionally, the Contracting Officer will conduct a price realism analysis on all CLINs for flight hours.

(A) The Government will calculate a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each offeror. The TEP will be the summation of the MAX AMOUNT for each CLIN listed on the SF 1449, plus an amount for a six month extension calculated in accordance with FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The MAX AMOUNT for each CLIN will be determined by multiplying the MAX QUANTITY identified in the SF 1149 CONTINUATION SHEET by the proposed UNIT PRICE for each CLIN. 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.

(B) Adequate price competition is expected; therefore, other than certified cost or pricing data is not being requested initially. 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.

(4) Factor 3: Technical Capability Proposal. Each offeror’s Technical Proposal will be evaluated on an

Acceptable or Unacceptable basis at the subfactor level using the rating and descriptions outlined in the table below.

Offeror’s proposals must receive an Acceptable rating for all of technical subfactors in order to be considered for award.

RATING DEFINITION

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the requirements of the solicitation

(A) Technical Subfactor 1 - Technical Approach. To be rated Acceptable, the Offeror’s technical proposal shall clearly describe an approach, including aircraft type, which will achieve the objectives of the Performance

Work Statement (PWS). The aircraft proposed must be positioned to begin operations within 30 days of award. The offeror shall submit a commercial quality control plan which describes the risk management procedures that will be utilized to ensure safe and reliable air transportation in accordance with FAR 135 and 32 CFR 861 (PWS para 4.2).

(B) Technical Subfactor 2 - Certification Documentation. To be rated Acceptable, the offeror’s FAA or

CAA Certification Documentation must be current and complete. The proposed aircraft must be on the offeror’s

Operations Specification at the time of proposal submission.

(C) Technical Subfactor 3 - Aircraft Ownership. To be rated Acceptable, the offeror must provide proof it owns the aircraft, or in the case of a lease agreement, the offeror’s signed agreement for the aircraft. The agreement must be current, binding upon both parties if the offeror is awarded a contract, and demonstrate the offeror’s ability to provide aircraft for the contract period of performance.

(D) Technical Subfactor 4 - Cyber Security. To be rated Acceptable, the Offeror 1) explained how all offeror-identified National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (SP) 800-171 requirements that will not be implemented are not applicable, or how an alternative control or protective measure is used to achieve equivalent protections, or 2) confirmed all security controls in NIST SP 800-171 are currently, or will be, implemented. The offeror's explanation must provide assurance that implementation of their information systems security without a specific control (or controls), or use of an equivalent control, will be effective in protecting DOD information from unauthorized disclosure.

(5) Factor 4: Past Performance. The Government shall evaluate each offeror’s performance information using questionnaires and other performance information to assign each offeror a Confidence Assessment Rating. Past performance information may be obtained from any 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), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee

Determining Officials; Defense Contract Management Agency; and commercial sources.

(A) The Government will begin its evaluation by first determining the recency and the relevancy of each past performance effort being evaluated. To be considered a recent effort, the effort must be currently on-going or have been completed within 3 years of proposal submission. Past performance information which exceeds the three

(3) year limitation will not be considered. 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.

(B) After the government has determined the recency and relevancy of each past performance effort, the

Government will assign the offeror a single past performance confidence assessment rating as defined below. This rating reflects the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation based on recent past performance efforts.

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.

(C) An Unknown Confidence rating will be treated neither favorably nor unfavorably in any trade-off decision.

(D) Offerors may be asked to 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.

(E) In evaluating past performance, the Government will give greater consideration to past performance efforts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

(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 Provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)