RFP_Amendment_N6134018R003000001.docx

N6134018R0030

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS

Section J - List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

RFP Attachments

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1 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 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, there may be perceived benefits among offerors assigned the same rating in Past Performance.

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, initial offers should contain the offeror’s best terms from a past performance 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 or site surveys.

All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. 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. Price

The Past Performance Factor is more important than the Price Factor.

For the Past Performance factor, the Government will evaluate recent performance to determine how well an offeror performed work in the past that is similar to the work required by the solicitation. The offeror’s compliance with the small business requirements of FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9 will also be addressed as a part of the Past Performance factor. When proposals are received from joint ventures, the past performance evaluation will consider the JV’s relevant past performance. 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” which may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

For the Price factor, the Government will evaluate each offeror’s price per student. The Price Team will evaluate offerors’ proposed prices and price volume for: (1) total evaluated price; (2) price reasonableness; (3) unbalanced pricing; and (4) completeness.

PART B SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 PAST PERFORMANCE.

The Government is evaluating past performance of the prime contractor or joint venture, as identified in the appropriate block of the submitted past performance contract. The Government will only evaluate the past performance that falls under the current CAGE code of the prime contractor or JV. The Past Performance Team will assess up to three records (such as CPARs) for each of three past performance contracts that the offeror performed and submitted. The Government will consider recency and relevancy of the contract; past performance information; and trends in contractor’s performance. 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 Government will consider past performance to be recent only, if any part of a CPAR or PPQ from the contract/order demonstrated performance is within three (3) years of the RFP date. Past Performance that is beyond the three (3) year period will not be considered recent and will not be considered in the evaluation.

1.2 Relevancy. In determining relevancy, the Government will compare the contractor’s role in the past performance contract’s scope, magnitude, complexity of the effort, contract type, the location and divisions of the company that performed the effort, CAGE code, location of performance, and the period of performance.

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. Evaluators will assign one of the following relevancy ratings to each past performance contract they evaluate.

1.3 Demonstrated Past Performance. After establishing the relevancy of a past performance contract, the Government will evaluate the demonstrated past performance of the contract. The Government will evaluate all parts of all CPARs or PPQs submitted by the offeror for each contract. 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.

1.3.1 Addressing Past Problems. In 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. 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. The Government will assign the Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method defined 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 receive a neutral past performance rating.

2.0 PRICE.

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s price proposal to determine its (1) total evaluated price; (2) price reasonableness; (3) unbalanced pricing; and (4) completeness. The Government may use various price analysis techniques such as 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.

2.1 Total Evaluated Price. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be the sum of the extended prices for Mobilization, and the CLINs shown in section B of this solicitation. The extended price for a CLIN 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 price of this six-month period will be calculated by dividing the final 12 month option period in half to establish an estimated cost for the six-month option to extend services. Additionally, the TEP will include the Government’s cost estimate associated with student travel and temporary duty assignment to the proposed training site. The cost estimate will be established based on the ground rules and assumptions identified in Attachment M-1.

2.2 Price Reasonableness. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), various price analysis techniques and procedures will be employed to ensure the prices being proposed for this requirement are fair and reasonable. Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. The Government expects that there will be adequate price competition and that the proposed prices will therefore be reasonable. If additional analysis is needed, the Government may compare an offeror’s TEP to the other offerors’ TEPs and the Government cost estimate to determine 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.

2.3 Unbalanced Pricing. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items. Unbalanced pricing exists when the price of one or more contract line items 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.

2.4 Completeness. Each offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror provided the information requested in Section L, Part B, paragraphs 2.0 -2.3.

2.5. Other Considerations Related to Price. The Government will develop a cost estimate for the travel cost for each student from his/her duty location to each offeror’s site. Specific rates will be applied as reflected in Attachment M-1. The total travel cost will be added to the proposed price to establish the TEP for the price evaluation.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf