FA3002-13-R-0024-0002.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:

1. Incorporate revisions to the Performance Work Statement (PWS), Section J Attachment 1

2. Amend Section M paragraph M.5.1.3. Performance Quality Assessment

3. Update clauses

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Aug-2014

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 FA3002-13-R-0024

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Aug-2014

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

21-Aug-2014

CODE

338 SCONS/PKC (MICHAEL E. CORRIGAN)

2021 FIRST STREET WEST

JBSA RANDOLPH TX 78150-4302

FA3002 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA3002-13-R-0024

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

52.209-9 Updates of Publicly Available Information Regarding

Responsibility Matters

JUL 2013

52.215-2 Audit and Records--Negotiation OCT 2010 252.204-7007 Alternate A, Annual Representations and Certifications AUG 2014

The following have been deleted:

52.209-9 Updates of Publicly Available Information Regarding

Responsibility Matters

JUL 2013

52.215-2 Audit and Records--Negotiation OCT 2010 252.204-7007 Alternate A, Annual Representations and Certifications MAY 2013

SECTION K - REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

The following have been added by full text:

252.209-7993 REPRESENTATION BY CORPORATIONS REGARDING AN UNPAID DELINQUENT TAX

LIABILITY OR A FELONY CONVICTION UNDER ANY FEDERAL LAW—FISCAL YEAR 2014

APPROPRIATIONS (DEVIATION 2014-OO0009) (FEB 2014)

(a) In accordance with sections 8113 and 8114 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014, and sections 414 and 415 of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113-76, Divisions C and J), none of the funds made available by those divisions (including Military Construction funds) may be used to enter into a contract with any corporation that—

(1) Has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, unless the agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government; or

(2) Was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless the agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that this action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.

(b) The Offeror represents that—

(1) It is [ ] is not [ ] a corporation that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability,

(2) It is [ ] is not [ ] a corporation that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under a Federal law within the preceding 24 months.

(End of provision)

The following have been deleted:

252.209-7993 (Dev) Representation by Corporations Regarding an Unpaid

Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction under any Federal Law—Fiscal Year 2014 Appropriations (Deviation)

FEB 2014

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

M.1. SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award This is a competitive Limited Tradeoff source selection (Performance Price Tradeoff w/Technical acceptable/unacceptable), in which competing offeror’s past performance will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to cost or price considerations. To be considered for award, the proposal must conform to the evaluation criteria described in this Section M, conform to all solicitation requirements and other information required by Section L, and the offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with (IAW) FAR 9.104-1.

Limited Tradeoff, as defined for this acquisition, is the Government’s ability to trade up to 5% in Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for a higher performance confidence assessment rating. As such, the evaluation outcome may result in award to a higher priced offeror, where a technically acceptable offeror with a higher performance confidence assessment rating is within 5% of TEP of the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror with a lower past performance rating (to include "Unknown Confidence"). The Government will not award a contract to an offeror that is judged to have “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence.”

For the purpose of conducting evaluations, the Government will first rank all proposals by price, and then proceed with the simultaneous evaluation of Technical, Past Performance, and Price volumes beginning with the lowest priced offeror. If the lowest overall priced offeror is determined to be "technically acceptable," and judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" rating, that offeror represents the best value and award will be made without evaluating higher priced offers. Alternatively, if the lowest priced offeror that is determined to be “technically acceptable” (not necessarily the lowest overall priced offeror) is judged to have a “Satisfactory Confidence” rating, and no other offeror’s price is within 5% of that offeror’s TEP, evaluations may cease and contract award may be made to that offeror.

If during proposal evaluations, the lowest priced offeror that is determined to be “technically acceptable,” is judged to have a “Satisfactory Confidence” rating while a higher priced offer determined to be “technically acceptable” is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” rating and is priced within 5% of the lower priced offeror’s TEP, the Government may trade up and award to the offer whose proposal was judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” rating.

The SSA shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision or determine the competitive range for the purpose of holding discussions. While the Government 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 contract for the Kirtland AFB Helicopter Maintenance Requirement.

c. Discussions The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Offeror(s) shall submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Proposal Preparation Instructions in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g., 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.

Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance or 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.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If the Government elects to hold discussions, a competitive range will be established based on FAR 15.306(c) procedures and this solicitation.

The Government reserves the right to further limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. If the Contracting Officer determines that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of this decision shall be provided to unsuccessful offeror(s) in accordance with FAR 15.503.

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.

d. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions 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. 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. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

M.2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS FOR AWARD

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

Factor 1 – Price

Factor 2 – Technical Subfactor 1 – Management Approach Subfactor 2 – Technical Approach Subfactor 3 – Workforce and Staffing

Factor 3 – Past Performance

Factor 4 – Small Business Participation

M.3. Factor 1 – Price Initially, offers shall be ranked according to TEP, including all option prices. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. When applicable, the price evaluation adjustment for HUBZone small business concerns will be applied in accordance with FAR 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, to arrive at an evaluated price.

NOTE: The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract an additional 6 months beyond the awarded contract performance period. In the event the Government requires continued performance, the Government’s evaluation of prices proposed for the base and all option periods will suffice to be the Government’s evaluation of prices under the extension of services (ref. 52.217-8). Should an extension of services be required, rates will be adjusted only as result of revisions to applicable prevailing Department of Labor wage rates.

Offerors whose TEP 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.

M.4. Factor 2 – Technical Next, the Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposal of the lowest priced offeror, and higher priced offerors thereafter, in order of price rank, as needed, assigning a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

M.4.1. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

M.4.1.1. Subfactor 1: Management Approach

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s plan to sustain effective and compliant-mission support with a trained workforce and in an environment that identifies and corrects deficiencies.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal meets all of the following requirements:

M.4.1.1.1. Quality Control. The proposed QC strategy defines clear and adequate processes to effectively: a) identify, b) assess, c) track, d) document deficiencies, trends, and risks; e) develop and implement corrective actions;

and f) analyze corrective action effectiveness.

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.

M.4.1.1.2. Vehicles. The proposed vehicle mix will support the PWS requirements, is comprehensive and sufficiently identifies: a) type, b) quantity of each type, and c) towing/seating capacity (or utility) of each vehicle.

M.4.1.1.3. Non-Duty Hours Response Timelines. The proposed strategy clearly and sufficiently provides response within one hour, 24 hours a day, during non-duty hours to launch and/or recover aircraft.

M.4.1.1.4. Mobilization. The proposed mobilization strategy and timelines are clear, realistic and ensure full performance upon conclusion of mobilization; the offeror adequately addressed: a) recruiting, b) training, c) qualifying and/or certifying maintenance and flight crew personnel and, d) transferring Government provided equipment, tools, and facilities.

M.4.1.2. Subfactor 2: Technical Approach

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s over-arching strategy to execute the aircraft maintenance mission.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal meets all of the following requirements:

M.4.1.2.1. Small Fleet Management. The proposed small fleet aircraft maintenance management strategy details comprehensive procedures to meet aircraft availability requirements that prevent depot, phase, aircraft support and major maintenance from creating aircraft availability conflicts. The proposal includes comprehensive and adequate procedures to meet: a) flightline support (launch and recovery of aircraft, pre-flights, thru-flights, basic post-flights, and maintenance servicing), b) scheduled/unscheduled maintenance, c) special inspections, d) troubleshooting, e) on-equipment repairs and, f) accurate documentation of all maintenance actions.

M.4.1.2.2. E-Tools Strategy. The proposed strategy includes comprehensive and adequate implementation measures to ensure E-Tools are fully operational. The proposal clearly and adequately describes processes to effectively manage, maintain, and configure all E-Tool hardware and software assigned to the 58 MXG.

Additionally, the strategy ensures E-Tools will be maintained with current and complete electronic Technical Order (eTO) software and eTO data.

M.4.1.2.3. Conducting Ground Flight Operations. The proposed strategy: a) establishes and sustains safe ground and flight operations and is compliant with DCMA INST 8210.1C; and, b) ensures flight crew training and qualifications remain current.

M.4.1.3. Subfactor 3: Workforce and Staffing

Description: This sub-factor assesses the offeror’s proposed aircraft maintenance organizational staffing.

Measure of Merit: The requirements of this subfactor are met when:

M.4.1.3.1. Organizational Structure. The proposed organizational structure illustrates a thorough understanding of the workforce required to meet PWS requirements, the offeror has provided: a) detailed descriptions of proposed roles and responsibilities for all organizational elements; b) a plan illustrating sufficient mission coverage for all contract periods; c) adequate coverage plans for all “one-deep” positions; and d) a detailed, proactivestrategy to recruit and retain an experienced labor pool and ensures employees are fully trained and qualified, with training, certifications and qualifications remaining current for the life of the contract.

M.4.1.3.2. Manpower Calculations. The mathematical/numerical computations and productive/non-productive hours for all proposed staffing, throughout all contract periods, are detailed and accurate.

M.5. Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Government will evaluate past performance to assess how well the offeror performed work relevant to the requirement described in the solicitation as an indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully.

The Government will use the following procedures in evaluating past performance:

M.5.1. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating the offeror’s recent and relevant past performance.

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: Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), 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, PPQ POCs, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

The offeror’s past performance efforts will be assessed for three categories: Recency, Relevancy and Performance Quality. The Government will only evaluate Performance Quality on past efforts that are determined to be both recent and relevant.

M.5.1.1. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the three years preceding the date of issuance of this RFP, to include at least six months of documented performance during the three-year period. Contract performance that meets these criteria will be evaluated in their entirety. Contract performance that does not meet these criteria will not be evaluated.

M.5.1.2. Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude and complexity of efforts described in this solicitation. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, greater consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort related to fleet management and full-spectrum helicopter maintenance comparable to the PWS requirements in terms of scope, magnitude, and complexity. The Government may give greater weight to performance on contracts deemed more relevant to the effort described in this solicitation and contracts where the offeror performed/is performing as the prime contractor.

The Government will use the following DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4, relevancy definitions:

TABLE 4 – RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT

Rating Definition

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.

M.5.1.3. Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror’s performance meets basic contract PWS requirements, the assessment will also consider aspects such as the offeror’s history of forecasting and controlling costs, adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction.

The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may reveal positive or adverse past performance information. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Offerors may be given the opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address in accordance with FAR 15.306.

The quality assessment performed in support of this source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, it gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

M.5.2. Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. The performance confidence assessment rating represents the 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 "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant, favorable past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, below:

M.6. Factor 4 – Small Business Participation

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

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.

M.6.1. IAW DFARS 215.304(c)(i), the extent of participation of small businesses and historically black colleges or universities and minority institutions will be evaluated on a best effort basis, and rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. The Contracting Officer will evaluate the extent to which offerors identify and commit to small business and historically black college or universities and minority institutions in performance of the contract, whether as a joint venture, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor. The requirements of this factor are met when the offeror adequately illustrates efforts taken to identify sources and opportunities, or provides adequate justification that sources or opportunities do not exist.

Applicability for Small Business offerors Small business offerors may include their own efforts when addressing the names, products and/or services and estimated total dollars planned to be provided by small business concerns.

(End of Summary of Changes)