NIFE Amendment 0002 Mod Document.docx

N6134020R0006

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been deleted:

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

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 differences in perceived benefits among offerors despite those offerors being assigned the same ratings.

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 Technical, Past Performance, and Price 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. 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) 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. Technical Element 1: Management Approach Element 2: Scheduling Approach Element 3: Staffing Approach Element 4: Aircraft and Equipment Approach Element 5: Maintenance Approach Element 6: Facilities Approach

b. Past Performance

c. Price

Technical is more important than Past Performance. Elements within the Technical Factor are not weighted or rated subfactors. Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are more important than Price.

Because Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are more important than the amount of the price, the selection official is permitted to select an Offeror that has proposed a higher price, within any stated budget in the RFP, if the superiority of that Offeror’s proposal is worth the price premium. Thus, the selection official will perform a tradeoff between Offerors’ evaluated prices and their evaluated Technical and Past Performance Factors.

TECHNICAL FACTOR RATINGS

The offeror’s technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with its technical approach. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the requirement.

TECHNICAL RATING

RISK RATING

PART B SPECIFIC INFORMATION

VOLUME 1: TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the quality and level of demonstrated understanding of the offeror’s technical proposal for the Elements listed below, as well as the risk associated with the technical proposal to meeting the requirement.

1 MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposed approach to manage the NIFE program. In doing so, the government will assess the Offeror’s response to:

1.1 Concept of Training Operations

Meeting required throughput for students and MFI IUTs in the Pensacola geographic area. This evaluation will include the Offeror’s completed Attachment L-2 Airfields, CFIs, and Aircraft Charts.

1.1.1 Contractor-Led Ground Instruction

Meeting NIFE Ground Instruction requirements.

1.1.2 Contractor-Led Flight Instruction

Meeting NIFE Flight Instruction requirements.

2 SCHEDULING APPROACH

The government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposed approach to Training Event Scheduling for the NIFE program. In doing so, the government will assess the Offeror’s response to scheduling students at the Pensacola geographic area to meet required student throughput.

3 STAFFING APPROACH

The government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposed approach to staff the NIFE program in the Pensacola geographic area. This evaluation will include the Offeror’s completed Attachment L-2 Airfields, CFIs, and Aircraft Chart. The government will also assess the offeror’s approach to CFI retention and recruitment.

4 AIRCRAFT AND EQUIPMENT APPROACH

The government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposed approach to provide the required aircraft and equipment for the NIFE program in the Pensacola geographic area. This evaluation will include the Offeror’s completed Attachment L-4 Aircraft Commonality Chart.

5 MAINTENANCE APPROACH

The government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposed approach to providing the required Aircraft Maintenance and Supplies for the NIFE program in the Pensacola geographic area.

6 FACILITIES APPROACH

The government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposed approach to providing the required facilities for the NIFE program in the Pensacola geographic area. This evaluation will include the Offeror’s completed Attachment L-3 Facilities Chart.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance will be evaluated to establish a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating that will reflect the Government’s confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the requirements in the solicitation, based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant past and present performance record.

The Government will not consider past performance references performed by an individual subcontractor, joint venturer or partner unless that individual subcontractor, joint venturer or partner is a principle team member as defined in this RFP. The Government will only consider past performance where the related contract included performance within three years from the initial solicitation issuance date and will only consider the past performance under that contract that occurred within three years of the solicitation issuance date. To evaluate past performance, the Government may use information other than information provided by the offeror in its proposal, and may use past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the offeror.

There are two aspects to the past performance assessment: Relevancy and the Demonstrated Past Performance.

Relevancy For each past performance contract submitted, the Government will evaluate the past performance contract to determine how relevant it is to this solicitation’s effort. 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 scope (tasking), magnitude (dollar amount of the effort on an annual basis), and complexity (average annual student throughput, average annual number of sorties flown, and the simultaneous operations on multiple airfields) of the past performance effort to the effort proposed to be performed under this solicitation. The past performance effort must have been performed by the same CAGE Code and DUNS Number as the proposing entity (or its principal team member). The Government will assign each past performance contract one of the following relevancy ratings:

Past Performance Contract Relevancy Ratings

Rating

Demonstrated Past Performance After relevancy of a past performance contract is established, for contracts determined to be at least somewhat relevant, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated past performance for Quality of Product or Service and Management.

For those cases where the contractor may have had past performance problems, 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.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating After the Government has compiled a full assessment of the offeror’s relevance and demonstrated past performance, the Government will assign a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating to the offeror. The assessment reflects the Government’s level of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the solicited effort based on the offeror’s record of relevant past performance. The Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings are below. 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.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and Principal Team Member’s reported safety incidents as a part of Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings. The Government will not provide a separate Safety rating.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

Rating

The Government will not take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies or key personnel.

3.0 Price. For the Price factor, 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.

3.1 Total Evaluated Price. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be the sum of the extended prices of the CLINs shown in section B of this solicitation. The extended price for a CLIN is the unit price multiplied by the unit quantity.

3.2 Price Reasonableness. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), various price analysis techniques and procedures may 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.

3.3 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 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.

3.4 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.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf