N61340-24-R-0024 0002 Modification.pdf

N6134024R0024

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 update PWS Section 4.2.1 and the Section L and M language.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Apr-2024

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 N6134024R0024

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11-Apr-2024

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 1 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

22-Apr-2024

CODE

NAWCTSD PROCUREMENT GROUP

GT21000

12211 SCIENCE DR

ORLANDO FL 32826-3224

N61340 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

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

Contract Attachments

Title Date Attachment 1 Performance Work Statement (PWS) 22 April 2024 Attch 1- PWS Appendix 2 Contract Funds Status Report Attch 1- PWS Appendix 3 Daily Flight Schedule Report Attch 1- PWS Appendix 4 Daily Aircraft Status Report Attch 1- PWS Appendix 5 ORM Assessment and Worksheet Attch 1- PWS Appendix 6 Daily OPSUM Report Attch 1- PWS Appendix 9 1542.1A NIFE Master Curriculum 4 SEP 2023 Attch 1- PWS Appendix 9a NIFE Checklist V18 3 NOV 2021 Attch 1- PWS Appendix 9b NIFE Expanded Briefing Guide 12 FEB 2024 Attch 1- PWS Appendix 9c NIFE Cessna Limits/EPs Quiz 14 MAR 2024 Attch 1- PWS Appendix 9d NIFE Cessna Limits/EPs Quiz Answers 14 MAR 2024 Attch 1- PWS Appendix 9e NIFE Hollywood Script 5 FEB 2024 Attachment 2 DOL Wage Determination

WD 2015-4561, Revision 24

26 DEC 2023

Attachment 3 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) 12 MAR 2024 Attachment 4 L-1 Solicitation Questions & Answers

From Issuance of N6134024R0004

Other Documents

NAVAVSCOLCOMINST 3710.3B NIFE InFlight Guide 5 FEB 2024

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

PART A GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.0 GENERAL

Section L contains instructions on how to prepare and submit proposals in response to this solicitation. The proposal must be sufficient in detail and scope to enable evaluation and provide the evaluators a clear understanding of the Offeror’s approach, expertise, and capability as required by the solicitation. Proposals must demonstrate that the Offeror has a thorough understanding of all requirements and associated risks and is able, willing, and competent to devote the resources necessary to meet all requirements. Unsubstantiated statements that the prospective Offeror understands, can or will comply with the specifications, or paraphrasing the requirements or parts thereof are considered inadequate and may render a rating of unacceptable. Initial offers should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a Technical, Past Performance, and Price standpoint. Nonconformance with these instructions may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation and elimination from consideration.

1.1 SOLICITATION QUESTIONS

Offerors shall submit questions regarding this solicitation in writing and shall submit them using the format in Attachment L-1 Question and Answer Form to this solicitation. The Government will review all questions and answer questions that affect the solicitation prior to the deadline for proposal submittal, provided that those questions are received by 5:00pm Eastern Standard Time (EST), 28 March 2024. Questions shall be e-mailed to the Contract Specialist, Katy Comellas-Deliz, at kathryn.r.comellas-deliz.civ@us.navy.mil with a copy to the Contracting Officer, Virginia Marquez, at virginia.l.marquez.civ@us.navy.mil. Answers to questions will be provided to Offerors via a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) amendment.

The Government reserves the right not to respond to any questions received concerning this solicitation after the date reflected above. Accordingly, Offerors should carefully review all solicitation requirements and submit questions to the Government early in the proposal preparation cycle. The Government will post all amendments to System for Award Management (SAM) https://sam.gov/content/home.

Per FAR 22.1009-3 the Government has identified all possible places of performance and the applicable wage determinations have been attached (Attachment 2) to the solicitation. Per FAR 22.1009-4, if an Offeror identifies any additional places of performance outside the areas covered by attached wage determinations the Offeror shall identify the place of possible performance via e-mail to the Contract Specialist, Katy Comellas-Deliz, at kathryn.r.comellas-deliz.civ@us.navy.mil with a copy to the Contracting Officer, Virginia Marquez, at virginia.l.marquez.civ@us.navy.mil. Any additional places of performance identified by the Offeror shall be submitted to the PCO and Contract Specialist no later than 5:00PM Eastern Standard Time (EST), 28 March 2024.

1.2 MINIMUM OFFER ACCEPTANCE PERIOD

a. The “Acceptance Period” is the number of calendar days available to the Government for awarding a contract from the date specified in this solicitation for receipt of proposals.

b. This provision supersedes any language pertaining to the acceptance period that may appear elsewhere in this solicitation.

c. The Government requires a minimum acceptance period of 180 calendar days.

d. The Government may reject an offer allowing less than the minimum acceptance period.

e. The Offeror agrees to execute all that it has undertaken to do, in compliance with its offer, if that offer is accepted in writing within the acceptance period stated in paragraph (c) of this section.

1.3 PRE-SOLICITATION CONFERENCES

There will be no pre-solicitation conferences or site visits.

2.0 ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL FORMAT

Do not submit hardcopy proposals for this solicitation.

Proposals must be formatted using a Times New Roman 12-point Normal font, single-spaced with 1-inch margins all around, and formatted for standard 8.5 x 11-inch paper. All pages should be numbered with section and page numbers. Graphs and tables shall be presented in no smaller than a 10-point font and should contain a grid, which allows values to be read directly from the graph. Graphs and Tables that fit on an 8.5” X 14” or “11” X 17” printed page will be counted as one page. Government issued “L-X” Attachments are acceptable in the format that they were provided. Drawing may be of any size and will count as one page. Graphic resolution, including such data as tables or charts, should be consistent with the purpose of the data presented. All proposal documents must be compatible with Microsoft Office 365 (Microsoft Word or Excel only) and/or the latest Adobe Acrobat Reader Portable Document Format (PDF), where applicable. All files shall be fully searchable (including graphics).

The Offeror is responsible for ensuring electronic proposals are virus free and shall run an anti-virus scan before submission. In order to reduce file sizes, the Offeror shall not embed sound or video (e.g., MPEG) files within the proposal submission. The Offeror is encouraged to simplify the color palette used in creating figures; and minimize size of graphics files; and avoid scanned images.

3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES

All volumes of the proposal shall be received electronically via the Solicitation Module in PIEE prior to the closing date/time stated in this solicitation. All proposals must be CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION (CUI). Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted as one electronic folder labeled as specified in the table below.

Page limitations for each volume are specified in the table below. Proposal pages beyond the specified limit will not be evaluated. Title/cover pages, table of contents, and list of figures/tables do not count towards the page limit.

Each volume shall contain the following information:

Cover and title page Title of proposal and proposal number as applicable Offeror’s name, address, POC name, phone number, and email address RFP number Proposal volume Table of Contents (The table of contents must provide sufficient detail to enable easy location of important elements)

Volume Number Volume Title Page Limit Copies Required 1 TECHNICAL 25 pages 1 Original 2 PAST PERFORMANCE None** 1 Original 3 PRICE None** 1 Original

**“None” does not indicate a desire or intent for a full Price or Past Performance volumes; Rather, the Offeror is encouraged to present as short and concise a Price or Past Performance Volume as is reasonable for the Offeror to effectively convey all relevant data to enable the government to accomplish its evaluation.

4.0 ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION:

Electronic copies of each volume shall be submitted through the Solicitation Module of PIEE at https://piee.eb.mil.

No other submissions, such as email, mail, hand-carried, proprietary or DOD SAFE submissions, Proposals submitted by mail or hand-carried will be evaluated. If there is a PIEE system outage, see instructions in 4.1, below.

All proposals received after the exact time specified for receipt shall be treated as late submissions. For instructions on how to post an offer, please refer to the Posting Offer demo:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Posting_Offer.pdf.

The Offeror shall notify the Contract Specialist, Katy Comellas-Deliz, at kathryn.r.comellas-deliz.civ@us.navy.mil with a copy to the Contracting Officer, Virginia Marquez, at virginia.l.marquez.civ@us.navy.mil that a proposal has been submitted. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to obtain written confirmation of receipt of all electronic files of the full proposal by the Contracting office. In the event that the Solicitation Module is down, the alternate method for proposal submission is identified in paragraph 4.1 below.

The submission date for all Volumes shall be no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 of the SF 33 of the

RFP.

4.1 ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION

In the unlikely event the PIEE system is not operational, experiences technical difficulties, or a Contractor is temporarily unable to access or use the system, the Contractor shall immediately notify the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer. This Notification must occur prior to the proposal submission deadline. Contractor notification shall be in writing by email and may be in conjunction with verbal notification, but verbal notification alone shall not be sufficient.

The alternate method for proposal submission is via expedited delivery or hand-carried if the Contractor has current base access. The Offeror must obtain prior approval from the Contract Specialist or Contracting Officer to use the alternate submission method. The Contractor shall have 24 hours to provide their proposal upon approval.

In the event that the Contractor alleges technical difficulties and does not notify the Contract Specialist or Contracting Officer until after the closing date and time, the Contracting Officer will follow the procedures identified in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and then make a determination if the Contractor’s late task order proposal submission is accepted. Screen shots of the submission should be taken to validate a submission was accepted in the PIEE system.

4.1.1 Contractor Proposals Submitted by Commercial Carrier: Contractor’s should make the utmost effort to submit proposals through the specified portal. However, if there is an unresolvable issue with the specified Government Portals:

Contractors shall submit proposals via United States Postal Service or through a commercial carrier using the following address:

NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAINING SYSTEMS DIVISION

Code: GT21000 (Virginia Marquez) 12211 Science Drive Orlando, FL 32826 Solicitation Number: N6134024R0024

4.1.2 Hand Carried Proposals: Hand carried proposals must be delivered to the address above, attention Virginia Marquez. If a proposal or amendment is hand carried, the Contractor must have current base access in order to deliver the proposal. Without base access, the Contractor may not get beyond the installation security gate to deliver its proposal. Guards are not authorized to accept proposals. Each Volume shall be on a separate CDROM. Delivery time shall be coordinated with the contracting office to ensure availability to sign for the package.

4.1.3 The Offeror shall package the CD-ROMs in the most efficient manner possible. The package shall include all Proposal volumes including the digitally signed document(s) submitted as part of the Cost/Price Volume. The package shall include a packing slip detailing the contents to include the volume number and title. Also, the package shall be stamped or marked “For Official Use Only” and “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

5.0 CLASSIFIED DATA

All proposals must be UNCLASSIFIED.

6.0 SOLICITATION CHANGES

For notice of any changes and additional information provided by the Government for the solicitation, please go to https://www.sam.gov. Search the database for the solicitation number N6134024R0024.

PART B SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

1.0 VOLUME 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Note: This volume shall not contain any reference to the price aspects of the offer.

The following is a list of Section L Attachments that the Offeror shall submit to provide supporting information for this volume:

(1) Attachment L-2, Airfields, CFIs, and Aircraft

(2) Attachment L-3, Facilities

The information in the Technical Volume should be presented in the order listed below.

Technical proposal shall not contain any reference to cost or price aspects of the offer.

Technical

Element 1: Management Approach Sub Element 1: Overview of Training Operations Sub Element 2: Contractor-Led Ground Instruction Sub Element 3: Contractor-Led Flight Instruction

Element 2: Scheduling Approach Element 3: Staffing Approach Element 4: Aircraft and Equipment Approach Element 5: Maintenance Approach Element 6: Facilities Approach

1 MANAGEMENT APPROACH

1.1. Overview of Training Operations

The Offeror shall discuss the general, conceptual overview of how it will meet the required throughput in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS), Section 3.2 and

3.2.6. This includes the Offeror’s description of how it will train approximately 1,680 students and 22 MFIs/IUTs annually at Pensacola and Gulf Shores, and the Offeror’s description of the aircraft and facilities the Offeror will employ to support NIFE requirements.

1.2 Contractor-Led Ground Instruction

The Offeror shall discuss how it will conduct Contractor-Led Ground Instruction in accordance with PWS 3.2.2.1.

1.3 Contractor-Led Flight Instruction

The Offeror shall discuss how it will conduct Contractor-Led Flight Instruction in accordance with PWS 3.2.3.

2 SCHEDULING APPROACH

The Offeror shall discuss its notional summer and winter schedule for Flight Scheduling for the NIFE program in accordance with PWS 4.0 and its subsections.

3 STAFFING APPROACH

The Offeror shall discuss its approach to staff requisite NIFE personnel during mobilization in order to meet training requirements at SSD in accordance with PWS 3.8 and its subsections.

The Offeror shall also discuss its approach to retain qualified CFIs and, when necessary, recruit new CFIs. The Offeror shall identify proposed personnel and their qualifications in Attachment L-2 Airfields, CFIs, and Aircraft.

4 AIRCRAFT AND EQUIPMENT APPROACH

The Offeror shall discuss its proposed approach to provide aircraft and equipment to the NIFE program in accordance with PWS 3.6.1. The Offeror shall identify proposed aircraft in Attachment L-2 and identify aircraft that are contractor-owned/leased at proposal due date. The Offeror shall provide a narrative regarding whether the aircraft owned/leased at proposal due date are sufficient to completely meet the PWS requirements, and if not, describe how many additonal aircraft the Offeror needs and when it expects to acquire those additional aircraft.

5 MAINTENANCE APPROACH

The Offeror shall discuss its proposed approach to providing the required maintenance and supplies for the NIFE program to ensure that enough aircraft are always available in accordance with PWS 6.0.

6 FACILITIES APPROACH

The Offeror shall discuss its proposed approach to providing the required facilities for the NIFE program in accordance with Section 5.0 and its subsections on Contract Support Date and throughout the life of the contract.

2.0 VOLUME 2 Past Performance

Note: This volume shall not contain any reference to the price aspects of the offer.

The following is a list of Section L Attachments that the Offeror shall submit to provide supporting information for this volume:

(1) Attachment L-5, Past Performance Data Sheet

(2) Attachment L-6, Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

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

2.1 Past Performance Contracts for Offeror and Principal Team Members

a. The Offeror shall identify up to five Government or commercial past performance contracts performed by the prime Offeror or any of its principal team members. At least one of the identified past performance contracts shall be from the prime Offeror. This five-contract limitation applies to a combination of prime Offeror and/or principal team members. For example, an Offeror could provide two past performance contracts from itself (the prime Offeror), plus up to three more past performance contracts from its principal team members (cumulative).

b. A “prime Offeror” for purposes of the past performance evaluation Factor is defined as the prime, joint venture, or joint venture team member.

c. A “principal team member” for purposes of the past performance evaluation Factor is defined as a subcontractor, partnership owner (partner), corporate parent, division, subsidiary, affiliate or vendor that is proposed to provide at least 20% of the proposed total cost for the contract.

d. The Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate how the resources of that principal team member – its workforce, management, facilities or other resources – will in fact be provided to perform at least 20% of the proposed total cost for the task or delivery order, excluding the prime Offeror’s profit. Merely stating that the Offeror has access to the resources of a principal team member is insufficient.

e. Task or delivery orders awarded under Multiple-Award Contracts (MACs) will be considered standalone “contracts” for purposes of past performance evaluation. Thus, Offerors may not propose an entire MAC as a past performance contract reference. The Government will not evaluate past performance of a MAC.

f. For a single-award indefinite delivery past performance contract, Offerors may propose the entire basic contract as a past performance reference, or may propose a specific task or delivery order as a past performance reference. If an Offeror proposes an entire single-award indefinite delivery contract as a past performance reference, however, the Offeror must provide the past performance information for each and every task or delivery order issued.

g. Any submitted past performance contract must contain performance within three years of the initial date proposals are due. Performance that took place more than three years from the initial proposal due date will not be considered.

h. The Offeror should provide written consent obtained from its principal team members that will allow the Government to coordinate any of those entities past performance issues with the Offeror. If the Offeror does not obtain and submit such written consent, then the Government will address any principal team member’s past performance issues directly with the principal team member and the Offeror will forfeit the opportunity to participate in any related discussions. Consequently, for any principal team members that do not provide such written consent, the Offeror shall provide a point of contact name, address, phone number, and email address with whom the Government may coordinate past performance issues.

i. The Offeror has the burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information. It is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of data provided in its proposal. The Government has no duty to search for additional data to cure problems the Government finds in the information provided by the Offeror.

j. The Offeror shall provide a list of Show Cause Notices, Cure Notices and Terminations for Default received on any contract, task order, or delivery order within the past three years for itself and any principal team member.

2.2 Relevancy Information of the Past Performance Contract

a. Provide the most recent, conformed version of each past performance contract identified, including the descriptions of the work (such as Statements of Work [SOWs] or Performance Work Statements [PWSs]).

b. Complete Attachment L-5 Past Performance Contract Data Sheet for all submitted past performance contracts. Provide SOW/PWS references (page number, paragraph numbers for any data cited) when completing the attachment. Offeror must highlight (in the supporting documents it provides) the exact content in those cited paragraph that it believes is relevant to the instant solicitation requirements.

2.3 Demonstrated Performance Information of the Past Performance Contract

a. Provide all CPARS addressing performance within three years of the initial solicitation release date for Government past performance contracts.

b. Do not provide self-described assertions of demonstrated past performance. Instead, explain the reasons for any past performance problems. Also, describe any claims or requests for equitable adjustment.

c. For past performance contracts that do not have CPARS Report(s), forward a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), RFP Attachment L-6, to the past performance contract customer’s Program Manager and/or Point of Contact ─ with a copy to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer.

All PPQs shall be forwarded within 14 calendar days from the solicitation issue date, with a copy forwarded to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer. The Offeror shall include instructions for its customers to send completed PPQs within two weeks of the customer’s receipt of the questionnaire to Katy Comellas-Deliz, Contract Specialist, via kathryn.r.comellas-deliz.civ@us.navy.mil, and Virginia Marquez, Contracting Officer, via virginia.l.marquez.civ@us.navy.mil.

3.0 PRICE PROPOSAL

3.1 Pricing Information

All pricing information shall be provided in the form of a completed Section B submitted as part of the price proposal.

3.2 Certified Cost or Pricing Data

(a) As this is a competitive acquisition with adequate price competition anticipated, any price documentation requested shall not be certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.406-2. However, in the event that adequate price competition does not exist after receipt of proposals, the Government reserves the right to request additional cost or pricing data as necessary from both the Offeror and subcontractors and may conduct negotiations with the Offeror, pursuant to FAR Part 15.403-4, in order to ensure a reasonable and realistic price.

3.3 Administrative Content:

(a) The Offeror shall provide the following additional and administrative information in the Price Volume:

(1) The Offeror shall provide a statement that it “assents to the terms and conditions of the solicitation without exception, deviation or waivers.” Failure to provide this statement is a deficiency.

(2) The Offeror shall include a statement confirming the minimum offer acceptance period of at least 180 days from the date specified in this solicitation for receipt of proposals.

(3) Completed and signed SF33 that acknowledges all RFP amendments (or the signed SF33 plus the signed SF30(s) for all amendments). Failure to provide this is a deficiency.

(4) Completed Section I clauses.

(5) If the Offeror is a joint venture, the Offeror shall provide the Joint Venture agreement.

(6) This Solicitation, and the resulting Contract, are subject to the Service Contract Act of 1965, as amended, and to FAR 52.222-41 and 52.222-43 contained in Section I. The Offeror shall propose in compliance with FY24 hourly rates set forth in the Department of Labor Area and Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Wage Determinations (WD), Attachment 2, and shall not include escalation for adjustments for covered employees under the Service Contact Act.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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 Sub Element 1: Overview of Training Operations Sub Element 2: Contractor-Led Ground Instruction Sub Element 3: Contractor-Led Flight Instruction 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 or Sub 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 Price, the selection official is permitted to select an Offeror that has proposed a higher price, 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.

PART B SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL

1. MANAGEMENT APPROACH

1.1. Overview of Training Operations

The Government shall evaluate the Offeror’s general, conceptual overview of how it will meet the required throughput in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS), Section 3.2 and 3.2.6. This includes the Offeror’s description of how it will train approximately 1,680 students and 22 MFIs/IUTs annually at Pensacola and Gulf Shores, and the Offeror’s description of the aircraft and facilities the Offeror will employ to support NIFE requirements.

1.2. Contractor-Led Ground Instruction

The Government shall evaluate he Offeror’s proposed approach to meet the Contractor-Led Ground Instruction requirements in accordance with PWS 3.2.2.1.

1.3. Contractor-Led Flight Instruction

The Government shall evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach to meet the Contractor-Led Flight Instruction requirements in accordance with PWS 3.2.3.

2. SCHEDULING APPROACH

The Government shall evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach to Flight Scheduling for the NIFE program in accordance with PWS 4.0 and its subsections.

3. STAFFING APPROACH

The Government shall evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach to staff requisite NIFE personnel during mobilization in order to meet training requirements at SSD in accordance with PWS 3.8 and its subsections.

The Government shall also evaluate the Offeror’s approach to retain qualified CFIs and, when necessary, recruit new CFIs. This includes the Offeror’s proposed support staff personnel. This evaluation will include a review of the Offeror’s completed Attachment L-2 Airfields, CFIs, and Aircraft.

4. AIRCRAFT AND EQUIPMENT APPROACH

The Government shall evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach to provide aircraft and equipment to the NIFE program in accordance with PWS 3.6.1. This evaluation will include a review of the Offeror’s completed Attachment L-2 Airfields, CFIs, and Aircraft. perfect

5. MAINTENANCE APPROACH

The Government shall evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach to providing the required maintenance and supplies for the NIFE program to ensure that enough aircraft are always available in accordance with PWS 6.0.

6. FACILITIES APPROACH

The government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposed approach to providing the required facilities for the NIFE program in accordance with Section 5.0 and its subsections by contract support date and throughout life of contract. This evaluation will include the Offeror’s completed Attachment L-3 Facilities Chart.

1.2 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

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

RISK RATING

Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains multiple weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains multiple weaknesses which are likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

1.3 OTHER DEFINITIONS

Strengths: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with merit or that exceeds specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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

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)

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 principal 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 proposal due 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 Performance Confidence Assessment Rating: Relevancy and the Demonstrated Past Performance.

2.1 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 Government will only consider Past Performance Information provided in attachment L-5 which is supported by the highlighted content in the SOW or PWS provided. 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). Contracts from different CAGE codes will NOT be considered relevant. The Government will assign each past performance contract one of the following relevancy ratings:

Past Performance Contract Relevancy Ratings

Rating Very Relevant Present/past performance contract effort involved essentially the same scope, magnitude, and complexities proposed to be performed in response to this solicitation. Contractor performed a throughput of at least 1,100 students in a one-year period.

Relevant Present/past performance contract effort involved similar scope, magnitude, and complexities proposed to be performed in response to this solicitation. Contractor performed a throughput of at least 800 students in a one-year period.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance contract effort involved some of the same scope, magnitude, and complexities proposed to be performed in response to this solicitation. Contractor performed a throughput of at least 100 students in a one-year period.

Not Relevant Present/past performance contract effort involved little or none of the scope, magnitude, and complexities proposed to be performed in response to this solicitation.

2.2 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.

2.3 Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

After the Government has compiled a full assessment of the Offeror’s relevant and demonstrated past performance, 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.

As part of the assessment, the Government will also consider any show cause notices, cure notices and terminations for default that are deemed relevant to this solicitation’s effort. The Government will not consider past performance information regarding predecessor companies or key personnel. The Government will not consider novated contracts unless the CAGE codes match. 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.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

Rating Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s 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 relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s relevant adverse performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s relevant adverse performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

3.0 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) administrative completeness. The Government may use various price analysis techniques such as comparison to historical pricing for the 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 Section B CLIN prices. 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 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. 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, the Offeror may be required to provide other than 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 or between CLIN pricing across different Fiscal Years. 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. This is not a price realism analysis.

3.4 Administrative Completeness.

Each Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror provided the information requested in Section L, Part B, paragraph 3.3(a)(1)-(6). Unless otherwise noted, questions to Offerors to resolve issues with the information requested in Section L, Part B, paragraph 3.3(a)(1)-(6) are not considered deficiencies that make an Offeror unacceptable for award, even if the information is necessary for contract award, unless the Offeror refuses to provide the requested information.

(End of Summary of Changes)