N6264920R0003 AMD 0004.docx

N6264920R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been modified:

52.246-20 WARRANTY OF SERVICES (MAY 2001)

(a) Definition.

"Acceptance," as used in this clause, means the act of an authorized representative of the Government by which the Government assumes for itself, or as an agent of another, ownership of existing and identified supplies, or approves specific services, as partial or complete performance of the contract.

(b) Notwithstanding inspection and acceptance by the Government or any provision concerning the conclusiveness thereof, the Contractor warrants that all services performed under this contract will, at the time of acceptance, be free from defects in workmanship and conform to the requirements of this contract. The Contracting Officer shall give written notice of any defect or nonconformance to the Contractor within one (1) year from the date of acceptance signature on the DD250 or designated acceptance document by the Government. This notice shall state either (1) that the Contractor shall correct or reperform any defective or nonconforming services, or (2) that the Government does not require correction or reperformance.

(c) If the Contractor is required to correct or reperform, it shall be at no cost to the Government, and any services corrected or reperformed by the Contractor shall be subject to this clause to the same extent as work initially performed. If the Contractor fails or refuses to correct or reperform, the Contracting Officer may, by contract or otherwise, correct or replace with similar services and charge to the Contractor the cost occasioned to the Government thereby, or make an equitable adjustment in the contract price.

(d) If the Government does not require correction or reperformance, the Contracting Officer shall make an equitable adjustment in the contract price.

(End of clause)

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M

M-1 EVALUATION FACTORS

1.0 General

Award of a contract resulting from this solicitation will be made to the Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, is in the best interest of the Government when considering award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. Offerors are advised that the proposal meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest cost/price may not be selected for 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 cost/price. Best value tradeoff analysis will not be performed for any Offeror who receives an unacceptable/no confidence rating for any factor, and award will not be made to any Offeror whose proposal is deemed unacceptable in any factor. "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. Subjective judgment on the part of the Government evaluators is implicit in the entire process.

1.1 Evaluation Process

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

Evaluation of an Offeror's proposal will be based on the information presented in the written proposal along with any input obtained from outside sources relevant to past performance. Proposals that are unachievable in terms of technical or schedule commitments may be deemed to be reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence, or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the proposed work, and may therefore be determined to be unacceptable or ineligible for award.

All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. Failure to address each of the areas identified in Section L will impact the resulting evaluation ratings and a deficiency or lack of responses to factors, sub-factors, elements, or sub-elements may be used as a basis for eliminating a proposal from further consideration.

1.2 Evaluation Factors

The Government intends to award a Single Award, Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract with Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) pricing structure to support this requirement. Government furnished equipment (GFE) will be provided for Contractor use and, with the occasional exception of Contractor provided equipment and material, the Government will supply the material for this work.

The evaluation criteria for this solicitation, in descending order of evaluation:

Factor 1 – Contractor Facility Location Factor 2 - Past Performance Factor 3 - Combined Technical/Technical Risk Factor 4 – Price Factor 5 – Site Survey

The evaluation of proposals will consider Past Performance to be more important than Contractor Facility Location, Combined Technical/Technical Risk, and Site Survey, which is more important than Price. Together, Contractor Facility Location, Past Performance, Combined Technical/Technical Risk, and Site Survey are significantly more important than Price. Combined Technical/Technical Risk sub-factors are of equal weight and sub-factor elements and sub-elements are listed in descending order of importance. The basis for Award will be Best Value Trade Off process.

Evaluation of Offerors' proposals will occur in five stages as summarized below:

The stages are described below:

Stage 1: The Government will first evaluate Factor 1 - Contractor Facility Location. Factor 1 will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis based on the Offeror’s submission of proof/verification that their facility is no further than 900 nautical miles from MCAS Futenma (Okinawa, Japan), and in a country that has a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) or similar diplomatic arrangement with the United States. Evaluation on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis will utilize the Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable ratings in Table 1 of Section M-2 below.

Offerors receiving an “Acceptable” rating shall move on to Stage 2 to be evaluated for Past Performance. Offerors receiving an “Unacceptable” rating will no longer be considered for award and no further evaluation will be conducted.

Stage 2: The Government will then evaluate Factor 2 – Past Performance of all remaining Offerors. For the Past Performance factor, the rating tables identified in Section M-2 entitled Table 2, “Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Table” and Table 4, “Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Table” will be utilized for the assignment of ratings for relevancy and confidence assessment. Past performance will be evaluated for confidence based on the Recency, Relevance, Quality, Schedule, and Safety of the submitted contracts. General definitions for Recency, Relevance, and Quality have been provided in Section M-2 below in Table 3, “Descriptions for Magnitude, Scope, and Complexity”

Only Offerors with Past Performance assessed as either “Substantial Confidence,” “Satisfactory Confidence,” or “Neutral Confidence will move on to Stage 3 to be evaluated for Combined Technical/Technical Risk. Offerors receiving either a “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” Past Performance Rating will no longer be considered for award and no further evaluation will be conducted.

Stage 3: The Government will then evaluate Factor 3 – Combined Technical/Technical Risk of all the remaining Offerors’ written combined technical/technical risk proposals to determine the offeror’s understanding of the technical requirements. A Combined Technical/Technical Risk Rating will be utilized in the evaluation. The Combined Technical/Technical Risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined Technical/Technical Risk evaluations will utilize the Combined Technical/Technical Risk ratings listed in Table 5 of Section M-2 below. Risk Descriptions are also provided in this table.

Only Offerors with assigned Combined Technical/Technical Risk Rating of either “Acceptable”, “Good” or “Outstanding” will move on to Stage 4 – Price. Offerors receiving either a “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” Combined Technical/Technical Risk Rating will no longer be considered for award and no further evaluation will be conducted.

Stage 4: The Government will then evaluate Factor 4 – Price for all remaining Offerors in accordance with Section 4.0 below. Only those Offerors whose price is determined to be Fair and Reasonable will be eligible for award.

Stage 5: DCMA will then conduct Factor 5 – Site Surveys of all remaining Offerors. In accordance with FAR 9.106, Pre-award Surveys, the possible results of the survey are: “Recommended Complete Award”, “Recommended Partial Award”, or “Recommended No Award”. Evaluation on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis will be utilized in conjunction with Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable ratings in Table 1 of Section M-2 below.

Only those Offerors recommended by the DCMA Pre-award Survey Manager (PASM) for either “Complete Award” or “Partial Award” will be considered “Acceptable”. Offerors receiving a “Recommend No Award” Rating will be considered “Unacceptable” and will no longer be considered for award.

Please note: Before a contract is awarded to an offeror who has been rated as “Recommended Partial Award,” each issue that led to the rating of “Recommended Partial Award” rather than “Recommended Complete Award” will be communicated to the Offeror and the Offeror provided opportunity to respond. No offeror will be awarded a contract following from the solicitation unless it receives a DCMA site survey rating of “Recommended Complete Award” or, if it initially received a “Recommended Partial Award” rating, each issue that led to that rating rather than to a rating of “Recommended Complete Award” is addressed by the Offeror to the satisfaction of the Contracting Officer.

2.0 Past Performance – Additional information

Each Offeror and any significant subcontractors will be evaluated on their past performance. The Government will focus on information that demonstrates the Recency, Relevancy, and Quality, Schedule, and Safety of past performance relative to the scope, magnitude and complexity of the procurement under consideration and to the performance requirements of this solicitation.

Offerors are advised that the Government may use and evaluate independently obtained past performance data, such as the additional Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs); Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) which contains Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS); other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), or other individuals; as well as, or in addition to, all recent and relevant past performance data provided by the Offeror. The Government reserves the right to contact, or elect not to contact, any or all of the sources provided by the Offeror, and to consider inputs received after the closing date/time of the solicitation. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of any past performance data provided. Furthermore, the Government does not assume the duty to search for data to explain or remedy any inconsistencies it finds in the information provided by the Offeror. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the Offeror.

In the case of an Offeror that does not have past performance information or for which information on past contract performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance and a neutral rating will apply. The past performance evaluation is separate from the responsibility determination required by FAR Subpart 9.1.

3.0 Combined Technical/Technical Risk Proposal – Additional information The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Combined Technical/Technical risk proposal, including all sub-factors, elements, and sub-elements, based on the information required by Section L of this solicitation. Sub-factors, elements, and sub-elements however, will not be individually rated. The Government will evaluate the extent and degree of risk to which the proposed processes and procedures ensure successful accomplishment of the scheduling tasks and quality as described in the PWS.

FACTOR 3 - -Combined Technical/Technical Risk

(ii) PMI Work Deck Development Process

(iii) PMI Work Deck Card Sample

(iv) Technical Documentation Management Approach

(v) In-Service Repair (ISR) and Contractor Field Team (CFT) Capability and Approach

(ii) SE Management Approach

(ii) Engineering Analysis Capability and Design Approach

(ii) Schematics

(iii) Supporting Documents

(ii) Business Relations

(iii) Risk Management

(ii) Workforce Management

(ii) Transition Schedule

(ii) Corporate and Facility Certifications

4.0 Price – Additional Information

4.1 Price Analysis

Price analysis will be conducted on the total evaluated price, including all options. For evaluation purposes, the price for the Option to Extend Services Clause 52.217-8 will be calculated as 50% of the offeror’s proposed price for Option Year 3. Each Offeror’s total price shall be evaluated to ensure that it is fair and reasonable. The Government intends to make a determination of fair and reasonable price on the basis of adequate price competition. However, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, the Government may use any of the analytical techniques in that section either singly or in combination with each other to determine that the final price is fair and reasonable. Award will not be made to an Offeror whose price is determined to be other than fair and reasonable.

Although price is the not the most important evaluation factor, it has the potential to become more significant during the evaluation process. The degree of importance of price will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based. The importance of price will also increase when a proposal's price is so significantly high as to diminish the value to the Government that might be gained under the other aspects of the offer.

4.2 One Offer

In accordance with DFARS 215.371, if only one offer is received, cost analysis shall be performed and will be the basis for negotiations. Furthermore, the Offeror shall be required to submit certified cost and pricing data.

4.3 Cost Analysis

If adequate price competition is received, the Government will only perform cost analysis to the extent that it is required to support price analysis, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(c)(1).

M-2 RATINGS

1.0 Rating Method

Evaluations in support of source selections shall employ an adjectival rating method for rating Offeror proposals against evaluation factors identified in the solicitation. The appropriate adjectival rating will be assigned to each factor, as required, subsequent to and consistent with the evaluation of all sub-factors, elements, and sub-elements, which will indicate a proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. Sub-factors, elements, and sub-elements however, will not be individually rated. For Past Performance, the Government will consider the Recency and Relevancy, then Quality, Schedule, and Safety of Past Performance to assign a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating.

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

1.1 Contractor Facility Location Rating Methodology

For the Contractor Facility Location and SOFA status, evaluation will utilize the Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method below. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess whether the offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements.

(Table 1) Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Table

1.2 Past Performance Rating Methodology

For the Past Performance factor, the Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine how well the Offeror performed efforts that are relevant and recent to the solicitation requirements. Past performance will first be assessed to determine if it is Recent. Contract performance for less than twelve (12) months or older than five (5) years as of the proposal receipt date will not be assessed further. More recent contracts are generally more relevant than contracts that are several years beyond their end of performance dates. Contracts determined Not Recent will not be evaluated for Relevance. Past performance for contracts deemed to be Not Relevant will not be evaluated.

The government will then evaluate the Quality, Schedule, and Safety of performance for those contracts deemed as Recent and Relevant, and a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will then be assigned, which addresses the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the required effort successfully based on the Offeror’s (including subcontractors’ and/or JV/SLE team members’) relevant past performance and systemic improvement. 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.

Offerors are advised that a Relevancy determination by the Government of Not Relevant may disqualify the associated contract for consideration in determining the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. Further, a Relevancy determination of Somewhat Relevant may significantly degrade the applicability of the associated contract and its relative weight to the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of past performance, without a record of Relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating. Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate how well an Offeror has performed similar work before. When proposals are received from contractor entities (e.g., teams, joint ventures) specifically formed to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual team member.

Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of “No Confidence” may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition. Offerors are also advised that a “Limited Confidence” rating may result in a proposal being eliminated from the competition (without discussions).

1.3 Combined Technical/Technical Risk Rating Methodology

The Combined Technical/ Technical Risk Rating considers the offeror’s approach and understanding of requirements and the likelihood (risk) that the offeror will be able to perform the described technical approach. The Combined Technical/Technical Risk Rating is made at the factor-level through an assessment of the weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the sub-factors, elements, and sub-elements of the technical proposal. Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government intervention, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Offerors are advised that an “Unacceptable” Combined Technical/Technical Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being eliminated from the competition.

2.0 Past Performance Evaluation

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: Recency, Relevancy, Quality (inclusive of Schedule and Safety), including general trends in contractor performance and source of information.

2.1 Recency

The first aspect is to evaluate the Recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is one of the criteria to establish the Relevancy of past performance information. Past performance submittals determined to be not within the Recency thresholds will be discarded and not be evaluated. This solicitation will consider only work experience already performed. Work yet-to-be performed, and work performed prior to the last five (5) years, will not be considered. In addition, performance data will only be assessed for those references demonstrating at least one (1) year of completed performance prior to the closing date of the solicitation. The burden is on the Offeror to demonstrate the Recency of the Offeror’s referenced contract(s) to the Government’s requirements.

2.2 Relevance

The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Therefore, to the maximum extent possible, Offerors shall submit documentation of the following types of past performance: USN/USMC H-53E aircraft scheduled and unscheduled depot maintenance; other USN/USMC rotor-wing aircraft scheduled and unscheduled depot maintenance; other United States military rotor-wing aircraft scheduled and unscheduled depot maintenance; or other United States military aircraft scheduled and unscheduled depot maintenance. The degree of the Offeror’s participation (prime, subcontractor and portion of scope responsibility) will also be considered in establishing Relevance. Past performance submittals determined to be Not Relevant may be discarded and not be evaluated.

(Table 2) Past Performance Relevancy Table

For purposes of this solicitation, the following general descriptions of magnitude, scope, and complexity apply.

Very Relevant

Relevant

Somewhat Relevant

(Table 3) Descriptions for Magnitude, Scope, and Complexity

2.3 Quality of Products or Services

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offerors’ past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The Government reserves the right to seek past performance information from any source. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assessed; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of Recency, Relevancy, Quality, Schedule, and Safety of performance.

2.4 Schedule of Products or Services

The fourth aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall schedule adherence of the Offerors’ past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The Government reserves the right to seek past performance information from any source. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the schedule adherence of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate schedule assessment rating will not be assessed; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, quality, schedule, and safety of performance.

2.5 Safety of Products or Services

The fifth aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall safety record of the Offerors’ past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The Government reserves the right to seek past performance information from any source. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the safety record of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate safety assessment rating will not be assessed; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, quality, schedule, and safety of performance.

2.6 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.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

(Table 4) Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Table

3.0 Combined Technical/Technical Risk Adjectival Ratings

3.1 Combined Technical/Technical Risk Ratings

The Combined Technical/Technical Risk Rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance associated with the Offeror’s technical approach.

(Table 5) Combined Technical/Technical Risk Table

4.0 Definitions

STRENGTH An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

DEFICIENCY A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

WEAKNESS A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

M-3 BASIS FOR AWARD

1.0 General

Award of the contract resulting from this solicitation will be made to the Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, offers the best value to the Government in terms of Contractor Facility Location, Past Performance, Combined Technical/Technical Risk, Site Survey approval, and price considered, rather than to the proposal offering the lowest price.

2.0 Award on Initial Offers

The Government intends to award the resultant contract on the basis of initial offers received. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost/price and technical approach standpoint. However, if considered necessary by the Contracting Officer during the evaluation of proposals, the Government may contact any or all or a limited number of awardees with questions concerning their responses as permitted under FAR Part 15.

3.0 Responsible Offerors

FAR Part 9.103(a) states that purchases shall be made from, and contracts shall be awarded to, responsible contractors only. FAR Part 9.103(b) stipulates that no purchase or award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. In making a responsibility determination, the standards at FAR 9.104-1 will be considered. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to request adequate evidence of responsibility on the part of the Offeror or any proposed subcontractor; communications with Offerors regarding responsibility issues may take place at any time during the proposal evaluation process. This may include a Pre-award Survey as defined in FAR 9.106.

4.0 Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest

If an Offeror believes that award of a contract as a result of this solicitation may create an actual or potential organizational conflict of interest, mitigation plans shall be submitted and will be evaluated by the Government. If the proposed mitigation plans are ultimately deemed unacceptable, the Offeror will be ineligible for award. See FAR Subpart 9.5, DFARS Subpart 209.5.

5.0 Incorporating Beneficial Aspects

In accordance with Paragraph 3.12 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 1 April 2016, Offerors are hereby informed that those beneficial aspects of the awardee's proposal which the Government assesses a strength shall be included at the Government’s discretion in the contract upon award at the proposed price.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf