NND14480735R_Amendment_6_2MAR16_.pdf

(x)

NND14480735R

x x

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 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 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.

x

DFRC

Edwards CA 93523-0273 P.O. Box 273 M/S 4811-140 NASA/Armstrong Flight Research Ctr.

000006

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers 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

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

03/25/2014

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The solicitation is amended as follows:

A. Addendum to 52.212-2 - Evaluation; Commercial Items Basis for Contract Award" is deleted in its entirety and substituted with the attached "Addendum to 52.212-2 - Evaluation;

Commercial Items Basis for Contract Award." Paragraph A is the only item that has changed.

B. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

End of Solicitation Amendment No. 6

INCO TERMS 2: Destination

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Robert Medina

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-2 - EVALUATION; COMMERCIAL

ITEMS BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

NASA anticipates a multiple-award contract. This is a competitive, best value source selection in which the past performance history of each Technically Acceptable proposal will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records.

Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. PROPOSALS DEEMED TECHNICALLY UNACCEPTABLE WILL BE CONSIDERED

UNACCEPTABLE OVERALL AND WILL NOT BE FURTHER EVALUATED.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Technical Acceptability. Initially, the Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Technically Acceptable or Unacceptable. Technically

Acceptable proposals shall meet ALL listed factors. A “Technically Unacceptable” evaluation for one or more sub-factor(s) will result in the overall proposal to be determined “Technically Unacceptable.” The evaluation process for any proposal determined to be “Technically Unacceptable” will not be further evaluated. The proposals will be evaluated against the following factors:

1. Offeror has relevant operational capability: Offeror’s proposal provides proof that conclusively demonstrates by successful flight(s) that the QV or QV family is capable of providing one or more of the

Flight Profiles described in the PWS. A “successful flight” is a test flight or a flight for pay, that was launched and recovered successfully with payload intact and whose salient characteristics closely approach or exceed one or more of the PWS Flight Profile requirements, including payload mass and altitude achieved. When evaluating proposed QV capabilities, the Government will consider any proposed deviations from the Flight Profile requirements, along with the rationale for those deviations, and any proposed innovative approaches for meeting PWS requirements. (REF: PWS Sects 4.1, 5.)

2. Offeror can provide commercial services, independently: Offeror proposes an operating plan with sufficient evidence that it can operate QV(s) to fly standard technology payloads at a commercial level (assumes full responsibility for up to but not limited to the following items: Flight Safety, Mission Assurance, and

Environmental compliance in accordance with local, state, and Federal regulations), independent of assistance from the requiring authority (NASA), with applicable permits, licenses, waivers, and/or flight approvals from the appropriate regulatory agencies, unless the contractor provides sufficient justification of why such items are not applicable to their proposed QV or QV family(s). (REF: PWS Sects 4.2.1, 6.2).

3. Offeror can respond appropriately to task orders: Offeror proposes an operational plan that addresses security and recoverability of payloads, how it will submit conforming deliverables at the task order level, and how access by payload providers and Government observers will be provided. (REF: PWS Sects 4.2.5, 8., 4.2.6, 4.2.2).

4. Proposed QV or QV family is reusable: Offeror provides evidence that the QV or QV family being proposed meets the requirements for reusability as defined in the PWS. (REF: PWS Sect 4.2.4).

B. Performance Confidence Assessment. Next, using questionnaires and/or other resources that are available to the contracting officer, the contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on all proposals deemed “Technically Acceptable” on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of “Very High Level of Confidence”, “High Level of Confidence”, “Moderate Level of Confidence”, “Neutral (or Unknown Confidence)”, “Low

Level of Confidence”, and “Very Low Level of Confidence” as defined in NASA Far Supplement (NFS)

Section 1815.305. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving comprehensive commercial space flight and integration services that are similar to or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive a rating of “Neutral,” which will be treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. Past performance regarding predecessor companies or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Conversely, key personnel who have relevant experience will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror because of the commercial nature of this acquisition. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

C. Price Evaluation. Next, the Government will apply Price Analysis techniques to the proposed pricing, to determine if proposed prices are "fair and reasonable" compared to known standards for similar services. The price analysis will include the total prices for the three base years, assuming one flight per year in the most basic configuration with no non-standard services. The Government will use the proposed prices for a single payload slot and/or a full manifest as applicable. The Government will also separately evaluate the proposed hourly burdened rates and labor categories, and the prices for non-standard services. Although the price volume is not numerically scored and receives no adjectival rating, it is important in determining that the

Offeror understands the requirement and the resources required to satisfy it. An overall determination of "fair and reasonable" pricing will be presented to the Source Selection Authority.

D. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision to one or multiple offerors.

E. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Clause 52.212-1.

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions, and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

F. The government intends to award a contract or multiple contracts without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

(End of provision)