N0001925R0003-0008.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 revise the "Very Relevant" definition in Section M and remove the clause at CTXT.204-9502.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Aug-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 N0001925R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-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 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

27-Aug-2025

CODE

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND

AIR-2.3.2.5

21936 BUNDY ROAD BLDG 442

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:

N0001925R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been deleted:

CTXT.204-9502 REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL SECURITY SYSTEM OCT 2005

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

The Government expects to select one Offeror based on 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. The Government advises Offerors 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 will evaluate each proposal and may 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. If 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. Therefore, an Offeror’s proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms at proposal submittal.

The Government will first evaluate each Offeror’s Volume 2, Pre-Requisites on an acceptable or unacceptable basis.

The Government will deem any Offeror who does not meet the pre-requisites as “Unacceptable” and will eliminate the Offeror from this competition without further consideration. The Government will then evaluate the remaining proposal Volumes for Offerors that received an acceptable rating in the Pre-Requisite assessment.

The Government may consider non-compliance with the terms, conditions, or requirements set forth in the solicitation as a deficiency. The Government may consider any exception or deviation to any term or condition of the RFP not expressly authorized by the RFP a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. Additionally, the Government may consider any approach that relies on Government Furnished Property and/or Government Furnished Equipment in order to comply with a requirement, unless otherwise allowed, a deficiency. Proposals assessed with one or more deficiencies make the offer ineligible for award.

The Government may incorporate any part of the Offeror’s proposal deemed beneficial to the Government, into the final contract with or without discussions. Additionally, MOB Logistics Support and Commercial Line Maintenance CLINs (CLINs 0003-0011) in the resulting contract are subject to FAR 52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards (formerly known as the Service Contract Act of 1965). Therefore, the Government has attached the Wage Determinations applicable to each site as Section J Attachments.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

An Offeror’s proposal, which meets the Section L, Part B, Specific Instructions, 2.0 Volume 2 (Prerequisite) requirements, will be evaluated based on the Technical factor, Past Performance factor and Price factor. The Government will make an award to the responsible Offeror, based on the best value considering the following relative order of importance of the evaluation factors: Technical is more important than Past Performance. All evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. The Contract Administration and Small Business Factors will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis and must be Acceptable to be eligible for award; however, it is not a component of the tradeoff. The Contract Administration Volume may be deemed “Unacceptable” if the proposed CLIN prices in Attachment L-2 and Attachment L-6 are not consistent.

The Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate to the Government’s satisfaction an approach that ensures the successful accomplishment of the solicitation requirements and overall program objectives. The Government may use the proposal information provided for one factor to assess other factors if the Government deems it appropriate.

II. SPECIFIC INFORMATION

A. PRE-REQUISITES

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s pre-requisite as “Unacceptable” if either of the following are submitted:

An out-of-date Title 14, CFR, Part 145 Certification for aircraft in the Design group “C,” “D,” or “E” as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Classification Group; or

A current Title 14, CFR, Part 145 Certification for aircraft in a Design group other than “C,” “D,” or “E” as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Classification Group.

Furthermore, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s pre-requisite as “Unacceptable” if the Offeror does not submit one of the following in accordance with Section L 2.1.2:

An existing signed data agreement; or A LOI and a schedule indicating an executed signed agreement will be in place by the end of the Transition

Phase-In (CLIN 0001) period, in accordance with PWS paragraph 29.0.

B. 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 evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror's 3.1 Material and Supply Management, 3.2 Commercial Line Maintenance and Ground Operating Procedures (GOPs) (14 CFR Part 121 and 43) for VMR-1 and VR-51, 3.3 Depot Level Support and Facilities, and 3.4 Aircraft On Ground (AOG) Support.

An overall Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be assigned. 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 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. Sub-elements 3.1.3, 3.2.4, and 3.3.4 will be assessed only for technical risk. All other elements and sub-elements in Technical will be assessed for both compliance and risk.

The Government advises Offerors that it will evaluate proposed benefits or features noted in the Table T-1, Attachment L-3. The Government advises Offerors that any offer to exceed a requirement or to provide a feature with performance and/or operational benefits may be included in the resulting applicable Contract within the proposed Cost/Price. Additionally, a proposal that provides the Government with a capability, service, or resource that is not specifically required, but benefits the Government can have merit if it appreciably enhances performance and/or operations to benefit the Government.

Failure to address part or parts of the technical factor caused by a lack of information may be assessed as a significant weakness or multiple significant weaknesses. A combination of significant weaknesses that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level may be considered a deficiency.

Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a Technical Rating or a Technical Risk Rating of “Unacceptable” is considered unawardable.

C. PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated past performance in delivering quality products and services similar to the solicitation requirements for the C-40 CLS program in each of the following areas: 1) meeting quality requirements, 2) meeting schedule requirements, 3) managing the contracted effort on similar programs, and

4) Small Business Utilization.

The Government will review each contract reference the Offeror submits for relevancy based on the Section M Relevancy definitions. The Government will evaluate the relevance (which includes recency) of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance. However, the Government will only consider contract references that are considered either Very Relevant (VR) or Somewhat Relevant (SR) to conduct the Past Performance evaluation. The Government will not consider contract references assessed as Not Relevant (NR) in the Past Performance evaluation.

The Government will use the degree of relevancy and the nature of the assessment when determining the Performance Confidence Level Rating. The Government may contact customers identified by the Offeror to obtain follow-up Past Performance Information as needed. The Government reserves the right to use information to evaluate past performance obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror. The Government may send additional PPQs and/or obtain information from sources identified by the Government evaluation team.

The Government will consider problems not addressed by the Offeror to still exist. However, the Government may consider discounting problems addressed through demonstrated systemic improvement. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied continuous systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems.

The Government will assign a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating based on an integrated assessment of all performance areas. This assessment will address the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the required effort based on the Offeror’s 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 too sparse or not available, the Offeror will receive a rating of Neutral Confidence. Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate how well an Offeror has performed relevant 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 performed on recent/relevant work using CPARs and/or PPQs.

D. PRICE

The Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be evaluated to ensure that it is fair and reasonable. The Technical and Administrative Data CLIN (0059) is not included in the TEP as it is not separately priced. Since all CLINs, except CLIN 0059, are included in the TEP, if an Offeror does not propose a price (i.e., the cell remains blank) in accordance with RFP Section L Volume 5-Price and Att L-6 OPS “Instructions” and “Definitions” for any CLIN, then the Offeror’s price proposal may be determined to be not fair and not reasonable; therefore, the Offeror’s proposal not eligible for award.

The TEP is defined as the sum of each CLINs’ Total Estimated Amount for each Contract Year (CY1-CY5) and FAR Clause 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services documented in Attachment L-6 OPS “TEP” tab:

The Total Estimated Amount for the following CLIN is defined as the CY1 Unit Price multiplied by the Total Estimated Quantity: 0001;

The Total Estimated Amount for the following CLIN is defined as the CY5 Unit Price multiplied by the

Total Estimated Quantity: 0002;

The Total Estimated Amount for each of the following CLINs is defined as the CY1-CY5 Unit Price multiplied by the corresponding CY1-CY5 Estimated Quantity: 0003-0011, 0013-0014, 0018-0030, 0033- 0034, 0039-0043, 0045-0048, 0051, and 0056-0057;

The Total Estimate Amount for each of the following CLINs is priced separately for each location/squadron and is defined as the location/squadron’s CY1-CY5 Unit Price multiplied by the corresponding CY1-CY5 Estimated Quantity: 0012, 0015, and 0031-0032;

The Total Estimated Amount for each of the following CLINs is defined as the CY1-CY5 Estimated

Quantity multiplied by the CY1-CY5 Government Estimated Amount multiplied by the sum of one (1) and the Unit Percentage: 0016-0017, 0035-0038, 0044, and 0049-0050;

The Total Estimated Amount for each of the following CLINs is defined as the CY5 Estimated Quantity multiplied by the CY Government Estimated Amount multiplied by the sum of one(1) and the maximum Unit Percentage: 0052-0055, and 0058; and

The Total Estimated Amount for the FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Service, is defined by the calculation in the "TEP" tab column J.

The Offeror’s “Unit Price” or “Burdened Rate” proposed in Attachment L-6 OPS “BUP” tab for all CLINs, including multiple locations/squadrons, in which the Government has requested a proposed “Unit Price” or “Burdened Rate” in all contract years will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government has not designated a specific percentage for determining an unbalanced price. The Transition Phase-In CLIN (0001) will not be evaluated for unbalanced pricing, since CLIN 0001 is proposed only in Contract Year 1 (CY1). It is noted the Government has requested the Offeror to propose a CY “Unit Price” or CY “Burdened Rate” even though the Government does not anticipate executing the CLIN based on the Government’s proposed Estimated Quantity.

CLIN 0013 Support Material Replacement and CLIN 0014 Government Property Replenishment will be evaluated for price realism.

As part of the Government’s price realism analysis, the Price team will review the Offeror’s proposed price assumptions for CLIN 0013 Support Material Replacement and CLIN 0014 Government Property Replenishment with the Technical team to ensure the proposed agreements and assumptions align with the Offeror’s proposed Technical approach. Inconsistencies between the Offeror’s proposed approach in the Technical volume and the Offeror’s proposed price in the Price volume may result in a decrease with the Technical confidence rating and/or risk rating. Furthermore, if the Offeror’s proposed pricing strategy does not fully price any cost element or price element, then the Price team will identify the price issue to the Technical team and may result in a decrease with the Technical confidence rating and/or risk rating.

The Government’s price realism analysis is dependent upon and specific to each respective Offeror’s proposed approach as described and priced in the Offeror’s Price narrative and the Offeror’s Attachment L-6 OPS in the Offeror’s price proposal submission. As such, the Government has identified the following potential elements to be evaluated:

Offeror’s proposed pricing strategy (e.g., materials, shipping, overseas, other costs, taxes/fees) to ensure the Offeror will be able to perform the work for the proposed price during contract execution;

Offeror’s proposed indirect rates as directed below;

Offeror’s proposed costs are consistent with the Offeror’s Price narrative and Offeror provided substantiating documentation;

Offeror proposed profit is at least zero percent (0.00%) for each CLIN.

As part of the Government’s price realism analysis, the Offeror shall propose in accordance with the Offeror’s documented DCMA FPRA, DCMA FPRR, DCAA Provisional Billing Rates, or the Offeror’s Management Signed & Approved rates documentation in effect the day prior to the initial submission of the Offeror’s price proposal. The order of acceptance is DCMA FPRA, DCMA FPRR, DCAA Provisional Billing Rates, then Offeror’s Management Signed & Approved rates. If the Offeror has an approved DCMA or DCAA indirect rate, then the Offeror shall use that indirect rate in the buildup of the Offeror’s Total Sell Price and Offeror’s TEP. If an Offeror does not propose in accordance with its indirect rate substantiating documentation, then the Price team will identify the price issue to the Technical team and may result in a decrease with the Technical confidence rating and/or risk rating.

As part of the Government’s price realism analysis, the Price team will identify price issues to the Technical team.

The Offeror shall not propose any business challenges or profit less than zero percent (0.00%). Additionally, any business challenges proposed by the Offeror not fully pricing any work scope may result in the Offeror’s proposed profit to be less than the minimum zero percent (0.00%). Further, discrepancies between the Offeror’s Attachment L- 6 OPS and vendor quotes will be identified as a price issue. Any price issue identified by the Price team to the Technical team may result in a decrease with the Technical confidence rating and/or risk rating.

The Government may use commercially published data, same or similar DoD contracts, Government estimates, industry standards, DCMA information, DCAA information, or other information as deemed appropriate by the Government. The Government may verify the information provided by the Offeror during its evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal.

E. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

The Government will evaluate the acceptability of the information provided in Volume 1 – Contract Administration.

F. SMALL BUSINESS

The Government will evaluate the acceptability of each Offeror’s (Large and Small Businesses) Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) as provided on Attachment L-7, SB-1. The Government will review the Offeror’s proposed SBPCD to ensure that the MQR of at least 5% of the total proposed contract price is met. The Government will review the SBPCD to ensure it is mathematically correct. The Government shall rate Offerors that do not demonstrate a 5% commitment as Unacceptable.

The Offeror shall review the Offeror’s SBPCD Section 3 and confirm that the Offeror provided the goals, dollar values, or percentages for each proposed small business category. Small business categories include Small Business (SB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB), Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), and HUBZone Small Business (HUBZone).

Additionally, the Government will confirm that each small business proposed for this effort has an active registration in SAM or that the Offeror provided a written certification of the small business participant’s status consistent with the NAICS code size standard identified by the Prime.

Although the SBPCD is separate from the SBSP (as required from Large Businesses), the Government will review the SBPCD for consistency with the SBSP submitted in Annex B. The SBPCD shall be incorporated into the contract as an attachment in Section J.

The PCO will review and approve the SB Subcontracting Plan (for Large Businesses) of the successful Offeror(s) prior to contract award as part of the responsibility determination. The Government will incorporate the successful Offeror’s approved Subcontracting Plan into the resultant contract as an attachment in Section J. The Government will monitor the contractor performance against the plan during contract execution.

A Small Business rating of Unacceptable will make the Offeror’s proposal unawardable.

III. DEFINITIONS

A. PRE-REQUISITE EVALUATON DEFINITIONS

Rating Description

Acceptable The Offeror’s proposal meets the pre-requisite requirements

Unacceptable The Offeror’s proposal does not meet the pre-requisite requirements

B. TECHNICAL CONFIDENCE AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

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

Color Rating Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength.

Purple Good Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable.

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

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses, which have a moderate potential to cause disruption to schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely overcome any difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses, which is likely to have a high potential to cause significant disruption to schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

C. PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant, or recent and 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.

Neutral Confidence

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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

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.

D. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION EVALUATION DEFINITIONS

Acceptable The Offeror’s proposal meets the Volume 1 – Contract Administration requirements identified in Section L

Unacceptable The Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Volume 1 – Contract Administration requirements identified in Section L

E. SMALL BUSINESS EVALUATON DEFINITIONS

Acceptable

SBPCD is accurate and complete. The SBPCD commitment meets or exceeds the MQR of 5.00% or more the total contract value (including options).

For Large Business Offerors, the SBPCD is consistent with its SBSP.

Unacceptable

SBPCD is inaccurate or incomplete. The SBPCD commitment is less than the MQR of 5.00% of the total contract value (including options).

For Large Business Offerors, the SBPCD demonstrates major inconsistencies with its SBSP.

F. OTHER EVALUATION DEFINITIONS

Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength

An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of 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 Any aspect of a non- price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

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 elapsed time since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. Contract references considered recent are within 10 years of the solicitation release date.

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 examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. For this solicitation, when the past contract reference includes all the following:

Contracts from an entity that has a defined role and responsibility identified in Table CA-2 (Workshare Summary)

Performing simultaneous depot level maintenance for a minimum of three (3) aircraft in the Design group “C” and/or “D” as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Classification Group;

Performing non-standard repairs on Design group “C” and/or “D” aircraft;

Performing Heavy Check maintenance on Design group “C” and/or “D” aircraft; and

Annual contract or order value of at least $5M per year.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. For this solicitation, when the past contract reference includes all the following:

Contracts from an entity that has a defined role and responsibility identified in Table CA-2 (Workshare Summary)

Performing simultaneous depot level maintenance for two (2) aircraft in the Design group “C”, “D” or “E” as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Classification Group;

Performing non-standard repairs in the aircraft Design group “C”, “D” or “E” as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Classification Group.

Performing Heavy Check maintenance on aircraft in Design group “C”, “D” or “E”; and

Annual contract or order value of at least $1M per year.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires (i.e., does not meet the above definitions of VR or SR); or contracts or the portion of those contracts submitted by the Offeror that meet any of the conditions below:

i. Contracts from an entity that does not have a defined role and responsibility identified in Table CA-2 (Workshare Summary);

ii. Contracts from an entity that does not have any work that matches the entity’s proposed role and responsibility identified in Table CA-2 (Workshare Summary);

iii. Contracts with different CAGE code/UEI than the entity proposed in Table CA-2 (Workshare Summary); or

iv. Contract references that require only engine component- level work is not similar in scope or complexity to the solicitation requirements.

Entity The term “Entity” is used to mean one or all of the following: Offeror/Prime Contractor, JV, JV team members, Subcontractor, and Corporate Parent, Division, Subsidiary, or Affiliate (e.g., any contractor with a different CAGE Code/ Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) than the Offeror).

Non-Standard Repairs

Non-standard repairs are repairs for a defect that cannot be addressed by the Approved Maintenance Program.

(End of Summary of Changes)