N00421-16-R-0011_Amendement_001_SF30_FORM.docx

N00421-16-R-0011

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been modified:

The following have been deleted:

The following were previously included by reference and are now included by full text:

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION

M-1 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

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 the proposal 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 best value tradeoff analysis will not be performed for any offeror who receives an unacceptable rating for any factor or subfactor, and award will not be made to any offeror whose proposal is deemed unacceptable in any factor or subfactor.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government intends to evaluate each proposal and award a contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the solicitation and provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to contact any or all or a limited number of awardees with questions concerning their responses as permitted under FAR Part 15; however, award may be based upon initial offers. 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, Offerors are cautioned that their initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical, past performance, and price standpoint.

Before advancing into the proposal evaluation process, the Offeror’s proposal will be assessed to determine whether it meets the aircraft certification prerequisite requirements identified in Section L, Proposal Instructions, Part B – Specific Proposal Volume Contents, paragraph 2.0 Prerequisites. This requirement will be assessed based on a pass/fail methodology. Any proposal that does not meet the Prerequisite certification requirement will be deemed Unacceptable and will be eliminated from further consideration in this competition.

All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. Failure to address each of the areas identified in Section L Part B Specific Information in the proposal will impact the resulting evaluation ratings and risk assessment. 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. A proposal assessed with a deficiency will make the offer ineligible for award. Failure to address each of the areas identified in Section L may impact the resulting evaluation ratings and a deficiency or lack of responses to factors and/or sub factors may be used as a basis for eliminating a proposal from further consideration

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

All proposals that meet the pre-requisite aircraft certification requirements will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. Failure to address each of the areas identified in Section L Part B Specific Information in the proposal may impact the resulting evaluations rating. The proposal must demonstrate to the government’s satisfaction that the Offeror will be able to successfully meet the solicitation requirements.

Proposals will be evaluated using the factors listed below in descending order of importance. Technical is more important than Past Performance. Technical and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than cost/price. All Technical subfactors are of equal importance. Price/Cost is not the most important evaluation factor, but its degree of importance will increase commensurably with the degree of equality among different offeror’s Technical and Past Performance proposals.

Proposals shall be evaluated using the factors (and subfactors, if required), listed below.

A. TECHNICAL

Subfactors:

1) Technical Experience

2) Understanding of the Work

3) Personnel Qualifications

4) Aircraft Performance Characteristics

5) Aircraft Availability/Reliability

B. PAST PERFORMANCE

C. PRICE/ COST

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

For all the Technical factor(s)/subfactors, a combined Technical/Risk rating will be assigned. This method reflects whether the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements along with an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal to determine the combined Technical/Risk rating. The benefit to the Government associated with assessed strengths along with technical risk will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional. 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. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an “Unacceptable” Technical/Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate recent performance to determine how well an Offeror has performed work similar to the work required by the solicitation. When proposals are received from joint ventures, specifically formed by the Offeror to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual JV team member’s relevant past performance. After evaluating the Offeror’s past performance information, a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating than past performance of lesser relevance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, the Offeror will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” which is considered a “Neutral” rating.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

PREREQUISITES

The Offeror’s proposal will first be assessed to determine whether it meets the aircraft certification prerequisite requirements identified in Section L, Proposal Instructions, Part B – Specific Proposal Volume Contents, paragraph 2.0 Pre-Requisites. Proposals that do not meet the Prerequisite certification requirements will be deemed Unacceptable and will be eliminated from further consideration in this competition

1.0 TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s 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 Offeror's approach.

The evaluation will also include an assessment of the following subfactors.

1)Technical Experience 2)Understanding of the Work 3)Personnel Qualifications 4)Aircraft Performance Characteristics 5)Aircraft Availability/Reliability

1. Technical Experience

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s, and (if applicable), its principal subcontractors’ and critical team members’ demonstrated relevant experience on the basis of its breadth and depth of experience performing the type of work required to meet program objectives. Emphasis will be placed on the Offeror’s experience in coordinating with Government program and contracting teams, managing subcontractors, management of assets and resources to ensure successful completion of missions, and utilization of qualified personnel (including the use of FAA certified pilots) for contract performance, and performing tasks as described in the SOW

2. Understanding of the Work

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the work based on responses required by Section L of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the clarity, and quality of the responses for the proposed method of performing contracts missions as described in the PBSOW.

3. Personnel Qualifications

The Government will evaluate personnel and the supporting information to determine how well the team is suited to perform the tasking contained with the SOW. In addition, personnel will be evaluated on meeting the personnel qualifications described in paragraph 8.0(a) of the SOW.

4. Aircraft Performance Characteristics The Government will evaluate the Offeror based on the aircraft performance characteristics of each of their aircraft as outlined in Section C paragraph 5.0 of the solicitation.

5. Aircraft Availability/Reliability

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal on the method of assuring aircraft availability for successful mission completion at PMRF Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

There are two (2) parts to the past performance evaluation. First, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and (if applicable) its principal subcontractors’ and critical team members’ past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort is to this instant effort. Similarity of the service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type and degree of subcontracting/teaming may be considered in the relevancy determination. Second, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s, demonstrated past performance in delivering quality products and services and in meeting technical, price, and schedule requirements on services deemed relevant to the solicitation requirements. Problems not addressed by the Offeror will be considered to still existIn the case of an Offeror without any relevant past performance or for whom the information on past performance is not available or is unknown, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably and will be assigned a rating of “neutral”.

3.0 PRICE

Any understatement or overstatement of prices/costs or inconsistencies between the Technical and Price/Cost proposals may reflect a lack of understanding of the work and could impact the technical rating/risk assessment . Therefore, any inconsistency between their proposed performance and price/cost should be explained in the proposal. For example, if the intended use of new and innovative production techniques is the basis for an abnormally low estimate, the nature and risk of these techniques and their impact on price/cost should be explained.

In its evaluation, the Government may use commercial published data, same or similar DoD contracts, Government estimates, industry standards, DCAA audit information, 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.

The evaluation will not bind the Government to purchase any of the options. The Government will evaluate overall contract price, which for evaluation purposes only, will include the basic requirement and options. 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 Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs 0001, 0101, 0201, 0301, 0401, 0002, 0102, 0202, 0302, 0402, 0003, 0103, 0203, 0303 and 0403. The total proposed price is the proposed unit price multiplied by the Section B maximum Estimated Quantity for that CLIN;

· The total proposed price for the Cost Reimbursable CLINs 0004, 0104, 0204, 0304, 0404, 0005, 0105, 0205, 0305, 0405, 0006, 0106, 0206, 0306 and 0406.

· The total Not Separately Priced CLINs 0007, 0107, 0207, 0307, and 0407.

· A six month extension as provided under FAR 52.217-8. See Section 4.6 below for details concerning the calculation of the price for this extension.

3.1 Firm Fixed Price CLINs:

Each Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to determine whether it is complete, reasonable, and consistent with the Offeror’s technical approach: whether it reflects a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements, and whether contains balanced unit pricing. In its evaluation, the Government may use commercial published data, same or similar DOD contracts, Government estimates, industry standards, field pricing reports, or other information as deemed appropriate by the Government. In addition, with the exception of those costs to the Government that are equal to all Offerors, adjustments to the total proposed price will be made to include Government costs required to accomplish the Offeror’s proposed approach (e.g., additional Government-Furnished Equipment/Government-Furnished Information required by the Offeror to implement its approach). The total evaluated price will be the sum of all CLINs contained in Section B. Furthermore, the Government may utilize information other than cost and pricing data provided in support of the fixed price portion of the offer when evaluating the offer.

The FFP CLINs (CLINs 0001, 0101, 0201, 0301, 0401, 0002, 0102, 0202, 0302, 0402, 0003, 0103, 0203, 0303 and 0403.) will be evaluated as stated above. For FFP CLINs, inconsistencies between the Technical and Price proposals may be assessed as proposal risk under the Technical Factor.

3.2 Cost Reimbursement (CPFF and COST CLINs):

Except for otherwise unacceptable proposals when awarding on initial proposals, the Government will perform a cost realism analysis to determine the most probable cost (MPC) for each applicable offeror’s proposal. Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost to determine whether the proposed cost is realistic for the work to be performed and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. In conducting its cost realism evaluation, the Government may review the prospective Offeror’s proposed labor categories and compare the proposed rate to the average labor rate in industry or other similar rates within the same demographic zone where the work is to be performed. Pertinent cost information, including but not limited to DCAA-recommended rates for such costs as direct labor, overhead, G&A, etc., as necessary and appropriate, will be used to arrive at the Government determination of the MPC for the performance of this contract. In addition, adjustments to the cost portion of the offer may be made to include Government costs required to accomplish the Offeror’s proposed approach (e.g., additional Government-Furnished Property/Government-Furnished Information required by the Offeror to implement its approach) with the exception of those costs to the Government that are equal to all Offerors. The MPC is an Offeror’s total cost, including fee, and any additional adjustments the Government has determined necessary to make the proposed cost realistic for all periods. The Government will use the results of its cost realism analysis to determine the MPC of performance for each Offeror. The MPC may differ from the proposed cost. The higher of the MPC or proposed cost will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. Contract awarded value, however, will be based upon the successful Offeror’s proposed costs.

Unrealistically low costs or inconsistencies between the technical and cost proposals may be assessed as proposal risk and could be considered weaknesses under the technical factor. Therefore, any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between the technical proposal and cost proposal should be explained in the narrative section of the cost/price proposal.

3.3 Price Analysis:

Each Offeror’s total price will be evaluated to ensure that it is fair and reasonable. The Government intends to make a determination of fair and reasonable pricing on the basis of adequate price competition. However, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques, the Government may use any of the analytical techniques in that section either single or in combination with each other to determine that the final price is fair and reasonable. Award will not be made to an offeror whose price is determined to be other than fair and reasonable. If, after receipt of a proposal, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the Offeror may be required to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-4.

3.4 Adjustments for Evaluation Purposes:

For evaluation purposes the evaluated price for this procurement will be based on the sum of the proposed unit prices, multiplied by the maximum quantity identified in Section B for the Base and all option years CLINs.

3.5 Overall Summary Level for all CLINs

Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the Government to determine reasonableness. If, after receipt of a proposal, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the Offeror may be required to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-4.

Prospective Offerors are forewarned that if there are discrepancies between Section B, Proposal Attachment (P6), and Volume 3 Narrative, Section B prevails.

4.0 EVALUATION OF OPTION TO EXTEND SERVICES CLAUSE

Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, is incorporated in the solicitation. Total evaluated cost 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 cost of this six-month period will be calculated by dividing the final option period (CLINs 0401, 0402, 0403, 0404, 0405, and 0406) by 12 to establish an estimated monthly amount. The monthly amount will then be multiplied by six to establish the estimated cost for the six-month option to extend services.

III. DEFINITIONS

PART C: EVALUATION RATINGS AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

EVALUATION RATINGS DEFINITIONS

1.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS DEFINITIONS

Combined Technical/Risk Rating: The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

2.0 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.

2.1 Past Performance Evaluation.

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Past performance need not be evaluated if the contracting officer, with the PM’s concurrence if a PM is assigned, documents the reason it is not an appropriate evaluation factor in accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii). The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

2.2 There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror's past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. The second aspect is relevancy. Review of the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting/teaming.

2.3 For purposes of this solicitation, there are four levels of relevancy, as shown in the table below. With respect to relevancy, past performance of greater relevancy 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. Quality of performance on more relevant contracts will weigh more heavily than quality of performance on lesser relevant contracts.

2.4 The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror's past performance. The evaluation team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror's performance, general trends and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment.

Performance Confidence Assessment. The Government will assign each proposal a past performance confidence assessment rating defined in the table below.

3.0 OTHER DEFINITIONS

Strengths: 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.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (FAR15.001)

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (FAR 15.001)

Deficiency: a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. (FAR 15.001)

Recency: as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant

Relevancy: as it pertains to past performance information, is 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 source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Risk: as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

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. See FAR 2.101.

Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussion is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

Communications are exchanges, between the Government and offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range. See FAR 15.306(b).

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. See FAR 15.001.

Discussions are exchanges (i.e., negotiations) in a competitive environment that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the offeror to revise its proposal. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range. See FAR 15.306(d).

Evaluation Notice (EN) is the PCO’s written notification to the offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or discussions.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf