N61340-18-R-0003Amd1.docx

N6134018R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

BLK 14

1. Extend Proposal due date to March 16, 2018 at 12:00pm

2. Update Att L-1 RFP QA Log

3. Update Att L-4 Staffing Charts to correct formulas (marked Amendment 1)

4. Update Att L-5 PBW/PEW (marked Amendment 1) as follows:

a. Remove CLINs 1361, 2361, 3361, 4361, and 5361.

b. Correct titles of tabs to accurately reflect PoP.

c. Unlocked cells I66, I85, I90, I92, I97, I99, and I115 on Lot I tab

d. CLINs 1501, 2501, 3501, 4501, 5501, and 6501 have step ladders changed to more accurately reflect APP_AF-COMS-KeyWest para 4.2.1.1

e. Added Att L-6 A005 history

f. Added Att L-7 2F196B Inspection Manual

g. Added Att L-8 UPS Battery Log

5. Deleted Appendix 08 for device 2F152 in its entirety

6. Updated the following Appendices:

a. Appendix AA COMS Ft Worth (marked Amendment 1)

b. Appendix AB JBMDL (marked Amendment 1)

c. Appendix AC Fallon (marked Amendment 1)

d. Appendix AD New Orleans (marked Amendment 1)

e. Appendix AE Norfolk (marked Amendment 1)

f. Appendix AF Key West (marked Amendment 1)

g. Appendix 3 2F176-1 (marked Amendment 1)

7. Update Section J to Incorporate Attachment 15h - CBA Ft. Worth Instructors

8. Update Section M 1.2 Relevancy to include management of SCA and/or CBA employees

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 12-Mar-2018 02:00 PM to 16-Mar-2018 12:00 PM.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 1361

The CLIN type priced has been deleted.

The CLIN description has changed from NAS Fallon, NV CAVE Trainer to RESERVED.

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

CAVE Sys Admin

To:

Do not price The pricing detail quantity 12.00 has been deleted.

The unit of issue Months has been deleted.

The FOB Destination has been deleted.

The FSC code J069 has been deleted.

The PROG code S10 has been deleted.

The WSC Equipment code 000 has been deleted.

The NAICS code 541330 has been deleted.

The MDAP/MAIS Code 000 has been deleted.

CLIN 2361

The CLIN description has changed from NAS Fallon, NV CAVE Trainer to RESERVED.

The pricing detail quantity 12.00 has been deleted.

The unit of issue Months has been deleted.

The option status has changed from Option to No Status.

The FOB Destination has been deleted.

The FSC code J069 has been deleted.

The PROG code S10 has been deleted.

The WSC Equipment code 000 has been deleted.

CLIN 3361

The CLIN description has changed from NAS Fallon, NV CAVE Trainer to RESERVED.

The pricing detail quantity 12.00 has been deleted.

The unit of issue Months has been deleted.

The option status has changed from Option to No Status.

The FOB Destination has been deleted.

The FSC code J069 has been deleted.

The PROG code S10 has been deleted.

The WSC Equipment code 000 has been deleted.

CLIN 4361

The CLIN description has changed from NAS Fallon, NV CAVE Trainer to RESERVED.

The pricing detail quantity 12.00 has been deleted.

The unit of issue Months has been deleted.

The option status has changed from Option to No Status.

The FOB Destination has been deleted.

The FSC code J069 has been deleted.

The PROG code S10 has been deleted.

The WSC Equipment code 000 has been deleted.

CLIN 5361

The CLIN description has changed from NAS Fallon, NV CAVE Trainer to RESERVED.

The pricing detail quantity 10.00 has been deleted.

The unit of issue Months has been deleted.

The option status has changed from Option to No Status.

The FOB Destination has been deleted.

The FSC code J069 has been deleted.

The PROG code S10 has been deleted.

The WSC Equipment code 000 has been deleted.

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

The Acceptance/Inspection Schedule for CLIN 1361 has been changed from:

The Acceptance/Inspection Schedule for CLIN 2361 has been changed from:

The Acceptance/Inspection Schedule for CLIN 3361 has been changed from:

The Acceptance/Inspection Schedule for CLIN 4361 has been changed from:

The Acceptance/Inspection Schedule for CLIN 5361 has been changed from:

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

The following Delivery Schedule for CLIN 1361 has been deleted:

POP 01-NOV-2018 TO

31-OCT-2019

FOB: Destination

The following Delivery Schedule for CLIN 2361 has been deleted:

POP 01-NOV-2019 TO

31-OCT-2020

The following Delivery Schedule for CLIN 3361 has been deleted:

POP 01-NOV-2020 TO

31-OCT-2021

The following Delivery Schedule for CLIN 4361 has been deleted:

POP 01-NOV-2021 TO

31-OCT-2022

The following Delivery Schedule for CLIN 5361 has been deleted:

POP 01-NOV-2022 TO

31-AUG-2023

The following have been modified:

F.1 All clauses within this section apply to each CLIN unless otherwise stated.

Periods of performance are as follows:

Mobilization – 12 September to 31 October 2018 CSD – 1 November 2018 Lot I – 1 November 2018 to 31 October 2018 (12 months) Lot II – 1 November 2019 to 31 October 2020 (12 months) Lot III – 1 November 2020 to 31 October 2021 (12 months) Lot IV – 1 November 2021 to 31 October 2022 (12 months) Lot V – 1 November 2022 to 31 August 2023 (10 months)

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachments:

1. Price Breakout Worksheet (PBW) (added at contract award, for solicitation purposes refer to L-5)

2. NAWCTSD 4330/60 Data Item Transmittal/Acceptance/ Rejection Form

3. Premium Time Hours Log

4. COMS Premium Time Request/Authorization/Completed Services Form

5. Additional Instruction Log

6. CIS Additional Instruction Time Request/Authorization/Completed Services Form

7. TDV Authorization Form

8. Excess Repair/Replacement Cost Request (RRCR) Form

9. Over and Above Work Request (OAWR) Form

10. CDRL Addressee Distribution List

11. On-call Maintenance Support Authorization/Completed Services Form

12. On-call Maintenance Support Log

13. SCA Price Adjustments Request Form

14. Draft DD-254 (Final DD254 added at contract award)

15. WDOL/CBAs

a. CBA New Orleans

b. WDOL JBMDL

c. WDOL Fallon

d. WDOL Key West

e. CBA Norfolk

f. CBA Ft. Worth

g. CBA JBMDL

h. CBA Ft. Worth Instructors Performance Work Statements:

1. Addendum A: RESERVE FORCES (RESFOR) Contractor Operation and Maintenance Services (COMS) at Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada; Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base (NAS JRB) Fort Worth, Texas; Joint Base McGuire/Dix/Lakehurst (JBMDL) FT, Dix, New Jersey; Naval Air Station (NAS) Key West, FL; Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans, Louisiana; Naval Air Station Norfolk, VA; dated 1 October 2017

2. Addendum B: RESERVE FORCES (RESFOR) Contractor Instructional Services at Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada & Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base (NAS JRB) Fort Worth, Texas; dated 1 October 2017

3. Fort Worth Site Specific:

a. APPENDIX COMS-AA FORT WORTH TX SITE SPECIFICS REQUIREMENTS

h. APPENDIX CMS-06 DEVICE 2C87, KC-130J

i. APPENDIX COMS-07 MINOR DEVICEs, MULTIPLE

j. APPENDIX COMS-08 DEVICE 2F152-1, KC-130T (OFT)

m. APPENDIX COMS-11 DEVICE C-130 LOADMASTER TRAINER

4. JBMDL Site Specific:

5. Fallon Site Specific:

a. APPENDIX COMS/CMS-AC Naval Air Warfare Development Center (NAWDC) NAS Fallon, NV SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

b. APPENDIX CIS-BA NAWDC NAS Fallon, NV SITE SPECIFIC

REQUIREMENTS

f. APPENDIX ON-CALL-19 NITE LAB/NVD/NSS

g. APPENDIX ON-CALL-20 9A17 ROBD2

h. APPENDIX COMS-21 2F239, CH-53E FTD

6. New Orleans Site Specific:

a. APPENDIX COMS-AD NAVAL AIR STATION (NAS) NEW ORLEANS, LA SITE

SPECIFICS REQUIREMENTS

7. Norfolk Site Specific:

a. APPENDIX COMS-AE NAVAL AIR STATION (NAS) NORFOLK, VA SITE SPECIFICS

REQUIREMENTS

b. APPENDIX COMS-25 2F200-15, MV-22B CFTD

c. APPENDIX COMS-26 2F200-16, MV-22B CFTD

8. Key West Site Specific:

a. APPENDIX COMS-AF NAVAL AIR STATION (NAS) KEY WEST, FLORIDA SITE

SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

b. APPENDIX COMS-27 2F213A-2, F-5N OFT

Exhibit Contract Data Requirements Lists:

Section L Attachments (deleted from Section J at contract award):

L-1 Q+A Log

L-2 PPQ

L-3 Contract Data Sheet L-4 Staffing Chart L-5 Price Breakout Worksheet/Price Evaluation Worksheet (PBW/PEW)

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PART A GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

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. The offeror is 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. Based on evaluation results, Offerors are advised that there may be perceived benefits between Offerors assigned the same rating in Past Performance or Technical.

1.1 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. 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, corporate experience and cost standpoint. The Government may use information other than that provided by the Offeror in its evaluation, including past performance information and the results of questionnaires.

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.

1.2 Evaluation Factors For Award

The Government will evaluate proposals using the following factors:

a. Past Performance

b. Technical

c. Price

Past Performance is more important than Technical. Past Performance and Technical, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. Proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors if the Government deems it appropriate.

For the Technical factor, a Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be assigned. The Technical Rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. For proposals containing no deficiencies, the benefit to the Government associated with assigned strengths will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional. The Technical Risk Rating reflects an evaluation of the proposed implementation of the approach to determine the potential for disruption of schedule, increase in cost, degradation in performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance, and also measures the degree of negative impact on program risk. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with a “Unacceptable” Technical Rating or a “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 or 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. Additionally, recent performance will be considered more relevant than older performance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, the Offeror will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of Neutral Confidence.

PART B SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate past performance of the prime contractor, joint venture, or a member of the joint venture as identified in the appropriate block of the submitted past performance contract. The Government will not evaluate the past performance of proposed subcontractors, predecessor companies, key personnel (to include partnership owners), corporate parents, corporate affiliates, corporate subsidiaries, or corporate divisions. The Government will assess up to five records (such as CPARs) for each of three past performance contracts that the offeror submitted. The recency and relevancy of the contract and past performance information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance will be considered. The Government may research and assess additional past performance information as part of the assessment rating. However, any past performance contract deemed to be Not Relevant will receive no further consideration, with no opportunity to submit a replacement, even if the Government requests revised proposals.

1.1 Recency

The first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance being evaluated. Past performance will be considered recent if the contract/order has been performed within five years of the final RFP issuance date. Past Performance that is not recent will not be considered in the evaluation as it is not relevant. The Government will consider the record (CPARs or PPQ) period of performance, even if only a portion of performance falls within the five year period.

1.2 Relevancy

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate how relevant the Past Performance being evaluated is to the requirements of this solicitation. Any past performance contract deemed to be Not Relevant will receive no further consideration, with no opportunity to submit a replacement, even if the Government requests revised proposals.

In determining relevancy, the Government will compare the contractor’s role in the past performance contract, contract types, total dollar amounts, dollar amounts of the effort actually performed, annualized dollar amounts, and the period of performance. As a part of its analysis, the Government will compare the scope (the types of work performed), magnitude (the contract dollar value), and complexity (number of locations, number and types of training devices maintained, cyber security and maintenance of classified and unclassified systems, and management of SCA and/or CBA employees). 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. Additionally, recent performance will be considered more relevant than older performance.

1.2.1 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

1.3 Quality

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the overall quality of the Offeror’s recent relevant, past performance. After relevancy of a past performance contract is established, the Government will evaluate the Prime, JV and JV team members performance and focus its evaluation on the Quality of Product or Service and Management. As part of the assessment, the Government may also take into account any show cause notices, cure notices and terminations for default that are deemed relevant to this solicitation’s effort.

A separate quality rating will not be assigned, rather the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of past performance taking into account the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

1.3.1 Addressing Past Problems and Improvements. For those cases where the contractor may have had past performance problems that are likely to occur again, the government will assess whether the offeror successfully applied improvements to resolve those recurring problems. Problems not addressed by the offeror are 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 systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems will be evaluated.

1.3.2 Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

The Government will employ the Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method described in the table below. In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have neutral past performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating: 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 recent and relevant past performance record and systemic improvement.

2.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Proposal, which includes Attachment L-4 Staffing Chart, to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the requirement. This includes, but is not limited to:

COMS and CMS:

· the Offeror’s approach to manning (labor type, mix, skill set, and number of personnel proposed) for each site;

· the Offeror’s approach to staffing based on complexity of device, and physical location of devices (proximity to one another);

· the Offeror’s approach to staffing as in relation to Contracted Training Time (CTT), scheduled maintenance, unscheduled maintenance, and performance of ancillary duties (e.g. Janitorial, Access Control, etc.); and

· the staffing proposed for ability to mitigate any temporary staffing shortages.

CI:

· the Offeror’s approach to manning (labor type, mix, skill set, and number of personnel proposed) for each site with CI;

· the Offeror’s approach to staffing as in relation to CTT and collateral responsibilities; and

· the Offeror’s mix of full-time and part-time CI staffing to meet CTT requirements and mitigate any temporary staffing shortages (as applicable).

For the Technical factor, a separate Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be assigned.

2.1 TECHNICAL RATINGS

Technical Rating: The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

2.2 TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

The Government will assign Technical Risk Ratings as described in the table below.

Technical Risk Rating: Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, need for increased Government oversight, or likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

3.0 PRICE

Each Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to determine whether it is complete, reasonable and whether it contains balanced unit pricing. In its evaluation, the Government will perform a price analysis to assess if the Offeror’s proposed price is fair and reasonable.

3.1 Price

The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be the sum of the extended prices for Mobilization, and the base and option CLINs/Tasks (OHPD/OHPW/OHPM) as shown in Attachment L-5 Price Breakout Worksheet/Price Evaluation Worksheet. The extended price for a CLIN or Task is the unit price multiplied by the unit quantity. The TEP also includes the option available to the Government under FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. Specifically, the evaluated cost/price of this six-month period will be calculated by dividing the final option period 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.

3.2 Completeness

Each Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror completed the following information requested in Section L:

a. Offeror Representatives and Information

b. Government Agency Information

c. Statement Regarding Assumptions, Conditions, Exceptions, Deviations or Waivers

d. Signed SF33 for the basic solicitation and acknowledgement of each amendment.

e. Completed Section I clauses 52.219-28 and 52.223-3

f. Completed Section K.

g. A statement identifying the proposal expiration period. The proposal expiration period should be no less than 180 days after proposal submission.

3.3 Price Reasonableness

Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. It is expected that there is adequate price competition and that the proposed prices are reasonable. If additional analysis is needed, the Government may use various price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), the Government may such a comparison of the Offeror’s proposed price to competing Offerors’ prices in response to this solicitation, comparison to historical pricing for same or similar DoD contracts, comparison to the Government’s independent price estimate, comparison to commercial and/or industry standards, among other techniques to perform the price analysis. The evaluation will not bind the Government to exercise any of the options.

3.4 Unbalanced Pricing

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

4.0 OTHER EVALUATION DEFINITIONS

The definitions below will be used by the Government when assessing solicitation compliance and the expected results of the Offeror's proposed approach.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf