N00019-14-R-0035_Amendment_0005.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 update the folow ing:

1. Under Section L, removes FAR Clause 52.215-1 Alternate I -- Instructions to Offerors -- Competitive Acquisition.

2. Under Section M, updates Paragraph 1and Paragraph 1A (changes are highlighted).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 18-Mar-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 N00019-14-R-0035

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

19-Dec-2013

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

18-Mar-2014

CODE

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND

AIR-2.4.4.1 SUITE 256 BLDG 2272

47123 BUSE ROAD UNIT IPT

PATUXENT RIVER MD 20670

N00019 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N00019-14-R-0035

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been deleted:

52.215-1 Alt I Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2004) -

Alternate I

OCT 1997

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

M-1 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (SERVICES) (MAR 2013) (JUL 2013)

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

The Government expects to select one offeror on the basis of its proposal providing the ―”best value” to the

Government, all factors considered. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the

Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. Offerors are advised that proposals meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest price may not be selected for an award if award to a higher-priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher-priced proposal must merit the additional price.

A. EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government intends to evaluate each proposal and award a contract without discussions to the responsible

Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government, all factors considered. Therefore, Offerors are cautioned that their initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical, past performance, corporate experience and cost/price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. When a competitive range is established, the Government may 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. The Government may use information other than that provided by the Offeror in its evaluation, including past performance information and the results of questionnaires or site surveys.

All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation, as well as for the risk associated with the Offeror’s approach. The Government may consider any exception or deviation to any term or condition of the RFP that is not expressly authorized by the RFP to be a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. Additionally, any approach that relies on Government resources or operations (e.g. Government Furnished Property, Government Furnished Equipment, Government personnel/actions, Government Concept of Operation changes, etc) in order to comply with a requirement, unless otherwise allowed, may be considered a deficiency. A proposal assessed with a deficiency will make the offer ineligible for award.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals shall be evaluated using the factors, which are listed below, where Technical is the most important factor.

Past Performance and Corporate Experience are of equal importance, with each being more important than

Price/Cost. All evaluation factors other than Price/Cost, when combined, are significantly more important than Price/Cost.

A. Technical

B. Past Performance

C. Corporate Experience

D. Price/Cost

The proposal must demonstrate to the Government’s satisfaction that the Offeror will provide a program that will ensure the successful accomplishment of the solicitation requirements and overall program objectives. Proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors if the Government deems it appropriate. In addition, the Offeror’s technical proposal will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the price/cost proposal where applicable, and reflects a clear understanding of the scope of work necessary to meet the solicitation requirements.

For the Technical factor, a Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be assigned. The Technical Rating evaluates the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The Technical Rating is an assessment of compliance with the solicitation requirements and merit which considers the benefits and detriments related to program performance and operations. The degree of benefit to the Government associated with a strength(s) will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s approach and understanding of requirements rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional. The Technical risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Failure to address part of the technical factor caused by a gross lack of information may be assessed significant weaknesses; this combination of significant weaknesses may be considered a deficiency. A technical sub-factor assessed to have a “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” Technical Rating or “High” Technical Risk Rating may have a disproportionate impact on the overall Technical Rating or Technical

Risk Rating even if it is the least important sub-factor. Any sub-factor that contains a deficiency, resulting in an

“Unacceptable” Technical Rating, or that has a “High” Technical Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

For the Past Performance factor, a separate Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned. This assessment will address the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort based on the Offeror’s (including subcontractors’ and/or JV team members’) relevant past performance and systemic improvement. In the case of an Offeror without a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will receive a rating of “Unknown” which is considered a “Neutral” rating. Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate how well an Offeror has performed similar work before. As such, the term “performance record” in the Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating definition is referring to the records that indicate how well the offeror has performed on recent/relevant work

(e.g. CPARs, and questionnaires). When proposals are received from contractor entities (e.g. teams, joint ventures) specifically formed to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual team member.

For the Corporate Experience factor, a separate Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned. The

Corporate Experience evaluation will focus on the Offeror’s (including subcontractors’ and/or JV team members’) recent and relevant corporate experience on programs with similar complexity as they relate to the tasks required to be performed in support of the solicitation requirements. Under Corporate Experience, the Government will evaluate whether, and to what extent, an Offeror has performed similar work before. As such, the term

“performance record” in the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating definition is referring to the records that indicate the degree to which the offeror has previously performed recent/relevant work (e.g. contracts). Lack of relevant experience could result in an adverse Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. Therefore, the

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) rating is not applicable to the Corporate Experience factor evaluation. When proposals are received from contractor entities (e.g. teams, joint ventures) specifically formed to propose on a particular acquisition, the corporate experience evaluation will consider each individual team member.

II. SPECIFIC INFORMATION

A. TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine the Offeror's understanding of, approach to and ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the Offerors approach.

The following subfactors are of equal importance.

Technical Element #1 – Technical Approach

Technical Element #2 – Management Approach

Technical Element #1 – Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to determine its ability to meet the requirements of the solicitation. The overall approach and its ability to meet the Statement of Work will be assessed. Elements to be evaluated include:

a. Implementation Approach

i. Contractor Facilities

ii. Staffing and Manning Plan

iii. Quality Assurance Plan

b. Over & Above Work Plan

c. Engineering Change Request Plan

Technical Element #2 – Management Approach

The Offeror's management approach will be assessed to determine the extent to which it can perform the work required by the solicitation on schedule and within cost. Elements to be evaluated include:

a. Vendor and Subcontractor Management Plan

b. Schedule Management Plan

B. PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s, and (if applicable) it’s principal and critical subcontractors’ and JV team members’ demonstrated past performance in delivering quality products and services similar to the solicitation requirements in each of the following areas: 1) meeting technical requirements, 2) meeting schedule requirements,

3) controlling contract cost, 4) managing the contracted effort on programs similar to the EIDS and EPCS aircraft modification effort. The relevance (which includes recency) of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance will be considered. The degree of relevancy assessed at the contract level may indicate the likelihood that relevant negative or positive findings associated with that contract may be found. However, it is the degree of relevancy of the finding, as well as its associated consequence that will be used in determining the Performance Confidence Level Rating. Problems not addressed by the Offeror will be considered to still exist. However, consideration for discounting problems may be given when those problems are addressed through demonstrated systemic improvement. The degree to which the Offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied continuous systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems will be evaluated.

C. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s, which includes its principal and critical subcontractors and JV team members’ demonstrated relevant experience on the basis of its breadth, depth, recency, and similarity to the work required to meet the program objectives. Each Offeror, including its principal and critical subcontractors and JV team members, will be evaluated on the extent to which they obtained similar or otherwise relevant corporate experience proven through contracts or subcontracts performed for products or services similar in scope, dollar value, nature and complexity as those under this solicitation. Corporate experience in the following areas will be evaluated: 1) Management, including Program Management and Subcontractor Management Experience, 2) managing and maintaining C-130 aircraft, 3) manufacturing of aircraft systems integration components, 4) installation and integration of aircraft subsystems and components.

D. PRICE/COST

Each Offeror’s price/cost proposal will be evaluated to determine if it is complete, consistent and reasonable with respect to the Offeror’s technical approach, reflects an understanding of the solicitation requirements, and contains no material imbalances. The offeror’s proposed labor costs will be compared to the offeror’s proposed staffing and manning approach to ensure that the prices proposed are consistent with the proposed approach. Unreasonable prices or inconsistencies between the Technical and Price/Cost proposals may be assessed as proposal risk under the

Technical factor.

In its evaluation, the Government may use commercial published data, same or similar Department of Defense

(DoD) contracts, Government estimates, industry standards, Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit information, and/or other information as deemed appropriate by the Government. In addition, adjustments (both upward and downward) to the total evaluated price that the Government deems appropriate will be made to include

Government costs required to accomplish the offeror’s proposed approach with the exception of those costs to the

Government that are equal to all offerors (e.g. additional Government-Furnished Equipment/Government-Furnished

Information required by the offeror to implement its approach).

The Government will evaluate overall contract price, which for evaluation purposes only, will include the basic requirement and option periods. The Government will use the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) in the trade-off evaluation to determine best value. The TEP is the sum of the following:

The total proposed price for the FFP CLINs 0X01, 0X02, 0X03, 0X04, 0X05, 0X06, 0X07, 0X08, 0X09, 0X11 and 0X15. The total proposed price is the proposed unit price multiplied by the Section B Estimated

Quantity for that CLIN;

The total proposed price for the Cost Reimbursable CLINs 0X10, 0X12 and 0X13. The total proposed price is the Government estimated cost plus the Offeror’s proposed markup/burden for that CLIN; and

Costs to the Government (e.g., additional Government-Furnished Equipment/Government-Furnished

Information) required by the Offeror to implement its approach. These costs include all Government costs required to accomplish the Offeror’s proposed approach with the exception of those costs to the

Government that are equal across all Offerors.

Additionally, the Government will be applying the following adjustment for evaluation purposes only:

A six month extension adjustment as provided under FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services.

The TEP will also include the six month performance period permitted under the clause, to account for a situation where invoking of the clause, in whole or part, becomes necessary. Specifically, the evaluated price of this six-month period will be calculated by dividing the final option period (CLINS 0309-0313) by

12 to establish an estimated monthly amount. The monthly amount will then be multiplied by six to establish the estimated price for the six-month option to extend services.

III. DEFINITIONS

A. EVALUATION RATINGS AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS –

EVALUATION RATINGS DEFINITIONS

Technical Ratings: The Technical rating assignments reflect the Government's assessment of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

Blue Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

Technical Risk Rating: The risk assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Rating Description

Low

Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

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.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

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.

For the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment rating assignments reflect the

Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the

Offeror’s relevant past performance and systemic improvement.

For the Corporate Experience factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment rating assignments reflect the

Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the

Offeror’s previous experience. Unknown Confidence (Neutral) is not applicable to the Corporate Experience factor evaluation.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings: More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

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.

B. OTHER EVALUATION DEFINITIONS -

Strength

An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Risk Reducer An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that reduces risk in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness (FAR 15.001) “Weakness” means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness

(FAR 15.001)

A “Significant Weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Uncertainty An aspect of the proposal that affects the Government’s ability to determine if a requirement will be met.

Deficiency (FAR 15.001)

“Deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Recency

A measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance or corporate experience reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance or corporate experience references are considered relevant. As it pertains to past performance, the time period for this solicitation is performance that is within 5 years from the due date of the proposal; and within that 5 year time period the more recent past performance references are more relevant. As it pertains to corporate experience, there is no specific time period for this solicitation, but more recent corporate experience is more relevant corporate experience.

Relevancy

A measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance or corporate experience examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance or corporate experience is an indicator of future performance.

(End of Summary of Changes)