2025.04.17 AMD 0002 HTC71125RC004.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:

A. Extend the RFP submission due date to 23 April 2025 at 4:30PM CST.

B. Make changes to the Performance Work Statement in response to solicitation questions. The follow ing paragraphs have been updated:

1.1, 1.2.1, 1.3.1, 1.5.1 and 2.1. Paragraph 1.3.2. Diversions w as added.

C. Provide additional language to FAR 52.212-2 (B)(ii): Technical Capability, Subfactor 2.

D. Incorporate Q&A Round 2.

E. All other solicitation language, terms and conditions remain unchanged. Due to an initial error, the current (and only) amendment is now referred to as "Amendment Tw o."

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

Y 1 5

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-Apr-2025

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 HTC71125RC004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Mar-2025

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 X is extended, 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

17-Apr-2025

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:

HTC71125RC004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (FAR) 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS

AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES 28 FEB 2025

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Although the Government intends to award without discussions, the Government retains the right to hold discussions if it is found to be in the best interest of the Government. The Government does not consider clarification of obvious clerical or administrative errors to be discussions and is not obligated to engage in communications with all offerors in the event that an error must be clarified by a vendor.

(b) The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

A. Factor 1: Business Proposal B. Factor 2: Technical Capability

i. Subfactor 1: Aircraft Requirements

ii. Subfactor 2: Mission Requirements

iii. Subfactor 3: Positioning C. Factor 3: Past Performance D. Factor 4: Price

Relative Order of Importance: Technical Capability and Past Performance are more important than price. The Business Proposal information is the bare minimum information required for proposal evaluation and must be provided in full to be considered eligible for contract award. When non-Price factors (not including the Business Proposal) are combined, non-Price factors are more important than Price. 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 Contracting Officer reasonably determines that the superior past performance of the higher priced, technically acceptable 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. This may result in the highest rated proposal not receiving an award.

(c) Evaluation Factors.

A. Factor 1: Business Proposal

The Government evaluation team will evaluate the Business Proposal factor on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis, assigning a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable as defined below. Proposals with an Unacceptable rating will not be considered for award. For this RFP, clarifications (limited exchanges) may be held with Offerors to address areas of non compliance that are considered minor or clerical errors. Such clarifications may lead to minor proposal revisions (e.g., signed Amendments, completed SAM representations) to address areas of non compliance that are considered minor or clerical error.

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

To be rated Acceptable, the Offeror must:

i. Submit completed RFP (SF 1449), any amendments, attachments, and additional proposal elements identified in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1(b)(12)(ii).

ii. Be registered in System for Award Management (SAM) under the provided CAGE/UEI at time of proposal submission and at time of award.

iii. Be substantiated, by applicable authority, as a DoD/CARB Approved Air Carrier, in accordance with 32 CFR Part 861, for the air transportation service and aircraft type offered. Carriers not approved at time of proposal submission will be ineligible for award.

iv. Provide FAA OpSpecs (or foreign CAA equivalent). Offeror’s FAA OpSpecs or foreign CAA equivalent identifies each aircraft proposed to be utilized and offeror’s currently authorized operations.

v. Provide applicable representations and certifications (Reps & Certs). Reps & Certs should be completed within Offeror’s SAM profile where available. Where unavailable within SAM, Offeror must submit additional Reps & Certs as included within the RFP. The list in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph (b)(12)(ii)(G) is not necessarily a complete list of all such Reps & Certs.

vi. Have available a NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment, no more than three years old, in the Supplier

Performance Risk System (SPRS) module within the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) system for each covered contractor information system.

B. Factor 2 – Technical Capability

The Government will evaluate the technical proposals at the subfactor level on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable/Unacceptable as defined below. An Unacceptable rating in any technical subfactor, identified below, will result in an overall Technical Capability rating of Unacceptable. Technical Capability proposals rated as Unacceptable will be ineligible for award.

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

The proposal shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

i. Subfactor 1: Aircraft Requirements. To be rated Acceptable, the aircraft cited in Attachment 4, Aircraft Information Sheet, clearly meets or exceeds the minimum aircraft specification requirements and demonstrates the ability to transport passengers, baggage, and cargo as outlined in PWS paragraph 1.2.

ii. Subfactor 2: Mission Requirements. To be rated Acceptable, the proposed approach clearly demonstrates the ability to meet the schedule requirements per PWS paragraph 1.3 and operate in the Bahamas.

iii. Subfactor 3: Positioning. To be rated Acceptable, the proposed Technical approach clearly demonstrates the ability to have aircraft/crew positioned, fully operational and mission capable by 01 October 2025 per PWS paragraphs 1.6.5 and 1.6.6.

C. Factor 3 – Past Performance

i. The Government shall evaluate each offeror’s past performance using questionnaires and other performance information independently obtained from government or commercial sources to assign each offeror a

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. Past performance information may be obtained from any sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), SAM, or other databases; and information obtained from Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials; Defense Contract Management Agency; and commercial sources.

ii. If the offeror fails to identify and describe the prime contractor, affiliate, subsidiary, key personnel, or subcontractor role in a past performance effort or how an affiliate, subsidiary, key personnel, or subcontractor will perform on the current solicitation requirements, then that past performance effort may be treated with Neutral Confidence.

iii. 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 three years of proposal submission. Past performance information submitted which exceeds the three-year limitation will not be considered. The following definitions will be utilized to determine the relevancy of each past performance effort:

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION – Past Performance Relevancy 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.

iv. After the Government determines the recency and relevancy of each past performance effort, the Government will evaluate the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The past performance evaluation does not establish, create, or change existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information on the quality of performance. Based upon an aggregation of the recency, relevancy, and quality of the offeror’s overall performance record, the Government will assign the offeror a single Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating as defined below.

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION – Past Performance Confidence 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 offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

No Confidence Based on the offerors 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 offerors performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

v. Past performance regarding predecessor companies or principal affiliates, subsidiaries, key personnel who have relevant experience, or principal subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of this requirement will be weighted the same (equally as important) as the past performance information for the offeror. Offerors with no recent relevant past or present performance history shall receive an Unknown Confidence, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an Unknown Confidence rating. Offerors receiving a Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of Limited Confidence or No Confidence will not be considered for award.

vi. Offerors will be provided an opportunity to address any adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation aspect or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

vii. In evaluating past performance, the Government will give greater consideration to past performance efforts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

D. Factor 4 – Price

i. The Government will conduct a price analysis to determine whether the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is fair and reasonable. The determination may be accomplished by one or more of the techniques set forth in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). An offeror’s proposed TEP will be determined by totaling the price for all CLINs and will include the total price for the 6-month extension of services, which may be exercised under FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The 6-month extension of services period will be calculated using the unit prices included in the contract for the last year of performance (Option Period 4).

ii. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more CLINs is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(d) 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 an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(e) 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)