RFP amendment 0003.docx

N6134023R0068

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

The following items are applicable to this modification:

Amendment 0003

This post-proposal receipt amendment is provided as the result of changes to requirements in support of the FTSP program. All eight (8) of the European locations originally planned to be supported by this program have been de-scoped. As the result of this, the following updates have been made:

1. Updated Attachment (1) PWS to remove the eight (8) European locations;

2. Updated attachments L-1 (Question and Answer Form), L-3 (Past Performance Contract Data), and L-4 (ID/IQ Pricing Worksheet);

3. Updated Section M, Part B, Paragraph 1.2 Relevancy, to reflect the current, and accurate number of sites compared in this instant effort; and

4. Updated Section J Attachment 3 Wage Determinations that have changed since Amendment 0001 was issued. (updated WDs are in bold)

As a result of this de-scope, this Amendment is being issued via PIEE. Offerors who have not previously submitted proposals shall do in accordance with Section L&M, and shall submit both Past Performance and Price Volumes via the PIEE module (instructions are provided with the original solicitation).

For any offerors who may have previously submitted proposals, an entire new Price Volume is required to be submitted, along with a signed copy of the Amendment 0003 cover page. This includes:

· updated pricing into the Amendment 0003 Attachment L-4 (ID/IQ Pricing Worksheet) using whole dollars only

· providing an explanation of how the labor rates for each year were derived with a mathematical breakout, addressing basis for the price increase from year to year and what method was used to calculate the increases

· provide an explanation to support any appearance of unbalanced pricing

· providing a signed Standard Form 33 for basic solicitation and Standard Form 30 for each amendment

· addressing any assumptions, conditions, exceptions, deviations, or waivers by the Offeror, and if none exist, so state

· a statement providing the proposal expiration period (no less than 120 days from original proposal due date)

· providing a completed Section K (including FAR 52.204-8, 52.204-24, 52.219-1 (DEV), and 252.204-7007

· provide proof that, as of the proposal due date, the offeror’s accounting system has been audited and has been determined adequate and suitable for administration of a cost-reimbursable type of contract.

As the result of the amendment, offerors shall provide a full revised Price Volume, including the updated Attachment L-4 and all substantiating documentation. Any Price Volume documentation previously provided by the offerors will not be utilized in the Government’s evaluation.

For any Offerors who previously submitted proposals, if previously submitted Past Performance Volume does not require any updates, please notify the Government that the formerly submitted Past Performance Volume is valid and no updates are required by the date the Price Volumes are due. If you do not notify the Government of such, or do not submit an updated Past Performance Volume, the Government will assume that the previously submitted Past Performance Volume is valid and will be base its evaluation on the last submission.

*Please note Section B and Section C text appear in this modification in error. No revisions have been made to these sections.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 28-Aug-2023 09:00 AM to 25-Sep-2023 09:00 AM.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

The following have been modified:

This is a single award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract with the ordering period as set forth in Section F. The Terms, Conditions, and Requirements herein apply to each Task Order (TO) unless otherwise stated.

Note 1: The total dollar ceiling for the overall contract inclusive of all delivery orders issued under the Firefighter Training Structures and Props (FTSP) ID/IQ is $ [to be inserted by the Government at award from Attachment L-4]. The number listed for “Max Quantity” in Section B for each CLIN does not represent an actual quantity to be ordered during execution. Rather, the “Max Quantity” multiplied by a “Unit Price” of $1.00 for each CLIN will represent the ceiling price of the ID/IQ when all CLINs are summed, inclusive of Options. The “Max Amount” identified in Section B for each CLIN represents an estimate of the contract type that may be executed. However, any amount for each CLIN may be executed as long as the ceiling price of the total ID/IQ contract is not exceeded. The Government reserves the right to reallocate values across the CLINs as necessary, throughout the ordering period, to accommodate Government requirements. Unit quantities and cost and pricing information provided in the basic contract are for administrative purposes only and may be adjusted throughout the life of this FTSP Maintenance Contract unilaterally by the FTSP PCO. Additionally, CLINs in Section B are not reflective of the FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services, and CLINs 0003 and 0004 may be extended up to an additional six months beyond the date currently identified in Section F, if exercised.

Note 2: The ID/IQ is established with the following CLINs/types:

· FIELD/ ON-CALL MAINTENANCE (OCM) LABOR (FIRM-FIXED-PRICE) - Field/OCM Labor CLINs include all labor, management, and documentation requirements for the field maintenance and training services (including Phone/Web-Based Support) to operate and maintain the training systems and equipment in a Fully Operational Condition (FOC) and in accordance with FTSP Performance Work Statement (PWS) 43100-A-0476 On-Call Maintenance and Training Support For Firefighter Training Structures And Props and Appendix COMS-01 through COMS-05. Labor CLINs are FFP, fully burdened, composite rates and shall include any escalation across each year of the ID/IQ. As such, these CLINs are not subject to any Service Contract Act Wage Adjustment. Each TO will include Estimated Hours for that year, and the hours may be adjusted upward or downward as required during the course of that TO in accordance with CLAUSE G.1.

· TRAVEL AND MATERIALS (COST NO FEE) - Travel and Materials may be executed as combined or separated CLINs on subsequent TOs. For administrative purposes these CLINs are combined on the basic contract.

TOs may have additional CLINs due to Government accounting procedures; or TO specific requirements which fit within the general scope of the FTSP PWS, which may include but are not limited to:

· Technical Data

· Provisioned Item Orders (PIOs)

· Over and Above Work Requests (OAWRs), e.g. Depot Level Maintenance

· Travel and Similar Reimbursable Expenses

Note 3: Travel and Material CLINs shall be executed on a COST basis, with no profit allowed on travel or material expenses. Travel will be executed in accordance with NAVAIR Clause 5252.232-9509 and Attachment 4 Travel Services Authorization Form.

Note 4: The following table identifies the established composite hourly rates for FIELD/ ON-CALL MAINTENANCE (OCM) LABOR over the life of the ID/IQ, during the respective periods. At the TO level, the number of hours established can be increased, or decreased, at the initiation of the TO, or through modification during the course of performance. Note: The Government identified hours in Attachment L-4 were used for estimating the ceiling, and are not a guarantee of actual hours established at the TO. This potential variance does not entitle the contractor to additional compensation. Additionally, as previously stated, these composite, escalated rates are not subject to FAR 52.222-43 Wage Adjustments.

Field/OCM Labor

1 Dec 2023 - 30 Nov 2024

1 Dec 2024 - 30 Nov 2025

1 Dec 2025 - 30 Nov 2026

1 Dec 2026 - 30 Nov 2027

1 Dec 2027 - 30 Nov 2028

1 Dec 2028 - 30 Nov 2029

1 Dec 2029 - 31 Mar 2030

1 Apr 2030 - 30 Sep 2030 (FAR 52.217-8)

The Government will populate the below table at contract award using the composite Labor rates provided by the successful Offeror in Attachment L-4.

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATION

C.1 PWS/TECHNICAL DATA

The specific requirement of this Single-award ID/IQ is identified in Section J, Attachment 1 Performance Work Statement 43100-A-0476.

Technical Data and Information requirements (DD Forms 1423) of this TO are identified in Section J, Exhibit A.

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

SECTION J

Exhibits:

Exhibit A001 – Contract Funding Status Report (CFSR) Exhibit A002 – Conference Minutes Exhibit A004 – Maintenance Report / Phone Support Exhibit A006 – Contractor Personnel Listing / Man Hours Expended Summary Exhibit A007 – Materials Log Exhibit A008 – National Fire Protection Association Report Exhibit A009 – Travel Report / Cost

Attachments:

Attachment 1 – Performance Work Statement 43100-A-0476 , Rev 3

APPENDICES:

Appendix COMS-01 – Mobile Aircraft Fire Training Device (MAFTD) Appendix COMS-02 – Falcon EX Car Trainer Prop Appendix COMS-03 – T-4000M Mobile Structural Fire Training Device (MSTD) Appendix COMS-04 – Falcon DXM F-18 Fire Trainer Appendix COMS-05 – BullEx Helicopter Fire Trainer Attachment 2 – CDRL Addressee List Attachment 3 – Wage Determinations (WDs)

a. Annapolis, MD – WD 2015-4265 Rev. 24

b. China Lake, CA – WD 2015-5603 Rev. 22

c. Corpus Christi, TX – WD 2015-5225 Rev. 22

d. Crane, IN – WD 2015-4821 Rev. 24

e. Dalghren, VA – WD 2015-4329 Rev. 24

f. Earle, NJ – WD 2015-4195 Rev. 23

g. El Centro, CA – WD 2015-5607 Rev. 21

h. Fallon, NV – WD 2015-5597 Rev. 22

i. Ft. Worth, TX – WD 2015-5231 Rev. 24

j. Great Lakes, IL – WD 2015-4935 Rev. 22

k. Guam – WD 2015-5693 Rev. 19

l. Jacksonville/Mayport, FL – WD 2015-4539 Rev. 21

m. Key West, FL – WD 2015-4583 Rev. 24

n. Kings Bay, GA – WD 2015-4515 Rev. 25

o. Kingsville, TX – WD 2015-5305 Rev. 21

p. Kitsap, WA – WD 2015-5525 Rev. 22

q. Lemoore, CA – WD 2015-5611 – Rev. 20

r. Mechanicsburg, PA – WD 2015-4225 Rev. 25

s. Meridian, MS – WD 2015-5169 Rev. 21

t. Oceana/Norfolk/St. Juliens, VA – WD 2015-4341 Rev. 24

u. New London, CT – WD 2015-4111 Rev. 25

v. New Orleans, LA – WD 2015-5189 Rev. 25

w. North Island, CA – WD 2015-5635 Rev. 22

x. Panama City, FL – WD 2015-4559 Rev. 23

y. Patuxent River, MD – WD 2015-4279 Rev. 22

z. Pearl Harbor/Hickam AFB, HI – WD 2015-5689 Rev. 20

aa. Pensacola/Whiting Field, FL – WD 2015-4561 Rev. 23

ab. Portsmouth, ME – WD 2015-4011 Rev. 24

ac. Pt Mugu, CA – WD 2015-5625 Rev. 19

ad. Whidbey Island, WA – WD 2015-5547 Rev. 22 Attachment 4 – Travel Services Authorization Form Attachment 5 – NAWCTSD Data Item Transmittal/Acceptance/Rejection Form Attachment 6 – Over and Above Work Request Form

Section L Attachments:

L-1 – RFP Question and Answer L-2 – Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire L-3 – Past Performance Contract Data L-4 – ID/IQ Pricing Worksheet

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government expects to award a Single-Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity to 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. Offerors are advised that proposals 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(s) must merit the additional price.

The Government does not evaluate every requirement of the solicitation under Section M of the RFP. The awarded contractor, however, is required to comply with all requirements of the awarded Contract.

Although the Government may waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received, the failure to comply with terms and conditions of the solicitation may adversely impact the offeror’s evaluation results, and could result in the offeror being removed from consideration for award.

2.0 OFFEROR RESPONSIBILITY TO SUBMIT AN UNAMBIGUOUS, CONVINCING PROPOSAL

It is the offeror’s responsibility to draft a logical, unambiguous proposal that contains all pertinent information in sufficient detail so that Government evaluators are able to meaningfully evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach and price.

3.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government intends to evaluate each proposal and award a contract without discussions to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government, all factors considered. If a competitive range is established, the Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Therefore, initial offers should contain the offeror’s best terms from a past performance and price standpoint. The Government may use information other than provided by the offeror in its evaluation, including past performance information, results of questionnaires, or site surveys.

All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. An Offeror taking exception or deviating from any term or condition of the RFP, may make an offer unacceptable, and the proposal unawardable. The Government may reject an offer allowing less than the minimum acceptance period. Additionally, any approach that relies on Government resources or operations (e.g., Government Furnished Property, Government Furnished Equipment, Government personal/actions, Government Concept of Operation changes, etc.) in order to comply with a requirement, unless otherwise allowed, may be considered a deficiency. A proposal assessed with a deficiency will make the offer ineligible for award.

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The Government will evaluate proposals using the following Factors:

1. PAST PERFORMANCE

2. PRICE

Past Performance is significantly more important than Price. Because Past Performance is significantly more important than price, the selection official is permitted to select an offeror that has proposed a higher price, if the past performance 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 findings in the Past Performance Factor.

PART B SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

For the Past Performance factor, the Government will evaluate recent, relevant performance to determine how well an offeror performed work in the past that is similar to the work required by the solicitation. 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.

The Government will only evaluate the past performance that falls under the current CAGE code of the Prime, Joint Venture, or Joint Venture Team Member proposing to this effort, except in the case of past performance being submitted by small businesses IAW 13 CFR § 125.11. The Government will consider recency and relevancy of the contract; past performance information; and trends in contractor’s performance. The Government may research and assess additional past performance information as part of the assessment rating. The Government may send additional questionnaires and/or obtain information from sources identified by the Government. Any past performance contract deemed to be Not Relevant will receive no further consideration, with no opportunity to submit a replacement, even if the Government requests revised proposals.

1.1 Recency

The Government will consider an entire past performance reference to be recent if at least a single day of performance occurred within three years of the final RFP issuance date. Any contract references that do not demonstrate at least a single day of performance within the three year recency period will be determined “Not Relevant” and will not be evaluated further. Any qualitative records related to contract references, such as CPARs and CPAQs, that do not demonstrate at least a single day of performance within the three year recency period will not be considered.

1.2 Relevancy

In determining relevancy, the Government will compare the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the portion of the work that was performed by the offeror to the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the instant effort. The scope comparison between the proposal and the RFP will address whether the offerors’ past performance contract is similar to the tasking required in the RFP, specifically related to Operations and Maintenance of Mobile Aircraft Firefighting Training Devices (as described by Appendix COMS-01 MAFTD). Magnitude will address whether the offeror’s past performance involved a similar annualized dollar value as the instant effort. The annualized dollar value is calculated by dividing the total dollar value by the total number of days of performance and multiplying by 365. Complexity comparison will involve assessing whether the past performance contract is commensurate with the RFP in terms of multiple sites (the instant effort has 54 sites), Depot-level maintenance (as described by PWS Paragraph 4.6.2), and performance of OCONUS work (excluding U.S. territories).

More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Past Performance Confidence Assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

1.3 Quality.

After relevancy of a past performance contract is established, the Government will focus its evaluation on the Quality of Product or Service, Schedule, and Management, as demonstrated by ratings and comments found in CPARs and CPAQs for each contract reference. As part of the assessment, the Government may also take into account any show cause notices, cure notices, letters of concern, and terminations for default that are deemed relevant to this solicitation’s effort. A separate quality rating will not be assigned. In general, comments and ratings of more recent past performance will be considered stronger indicators of an offeror’s ability to meet or not meet the requirements of the instant effort than less recent comments and ratings.

1.3.1 Addressing Past Problems and Improvements

For those cases where the contractor may have had past performance problems that are likely to occur again, the government will assess whether the offeror successfully applied improvements to resolve those recurring problems. Problems not addressed by the offeror are considered to still exist. However, consideration for discounting problems may be given when those problems are addressed through demonstrated improvement. The degree to which the offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully resolved past performance problems will be considered in the evaluation.

1.3.2 Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

In the case of an offeror without a record of recent relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. In such cases, the offeror shall receive a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of Neutral Confidence. Ratings of Satisfactory or Substantial Confidence may be considered more beneficial to the Government than a Neutral rating.

PAST PERFORMANCE DEFINITIONS

For the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment rating assignments reflect the Government’s confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements.

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.

Other Definitions:

i. Contracts performed under the CAGE/DUNS of an entity other than the proposing Prime, Joint Venture, or Joint Venture Team Member, except in the case of past performance being submitted by small businesses IAW 13 CFR § 125.11.

ii. Past performance contract references that do not contain at least one day of performance within the three year Recency period, as defined by this RFP.

iii. Past performance contract references that do not include Operations and Maintenance of Mobile Aircraft Firefighter Training Devices (MAFTDs) (as described by Appendix COMS-01 MAFTD).

2.0 VOLUME 2: PRICE

2.1 – Price Evaluation The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price Volume for its proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP); Price Reasonableness; whether the Offeror’s proposed PEW pricing is balanced; and Administrative Completeness (whether the Offeror completed the information requested in Section L).

a. Total Evaluated Price: The TEP will be the sum of all labor, materials, and travel estimated costs as shown in the Attachment L-4. The Government has provided the estimated hours, material and travel for purposes of establishing the ceiling. The Government will calculate the TEP, by multiplying the estimated hours by the offeror’s proposed labor rates, and add the Government estimated material and travel costs identified, resulting in the TEP identified in Attachment L-4, Cell D14. The TEP includes the option available to the Government under FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The evaluation establishes the price of the ceiling and the established Labor Rates during the period of performance and will not bind the Government to purchase any of the option CLINs, or the Government estimated Labor Hours, Materials, or Travel.

b. Price Reasonableness: Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. It is expected that this Contract award decision will include a determination that there is adequate price competition and that the proposed prices are reasonable. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the Government to determine reasonableness. If, after receipt of a proposal, the Procuring Contracting Officer 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 requested to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR § 15.403-4.

c. Unbalanced Pricing: As required by FAR § 15.404-1(g)(2), the Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between labor rates in Attachment L-4. Offerors discussion in the Price Volume on how the labor rates for each year were derived including mathematical breakout, addressing basis for the price increase from year to year and what method was used to calculate the increases, and any explanations on the appearance of unbalanced pricing will be considered in determining if unbalanced pricing exists, or if it rises to an unacceptable degree. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price 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, price realism of the composite rate will not be evaluated.

d. Completeness: The information below is not part of the selection official’s “best value” tradeoff, but some of the information may be necessary for an offeror’s proposal to be acceptable for contract award. Failure to provide the below information does not necessarily make an offeror unacceptable for award selection, even if the information below is necessary to make the actual contract award, unless the offeror refuses to provide the requested information. Each Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror completed the following information requested in Section L:

i. Signed Standard Form 33 for basic solicitation and each amendment.

ii. Assumptions, Conditions, Exceptions, Deviations or Waivers: Assumptions, conditions, exceptions, deviations, and requests for waivers may cause proposals to be considered deficient and, thus, not awardable. If there are no assumptions, conditions, exceptions, deviations or waivers, the offeror shall provide a statement stating that the proposal contains no assumptions, conditions, exceptions, deviations or waivers. If the offeror proposes an assumption, condition, exception, deviation, or waiver to a term or condition of the solicitation, the offeror shall provide a detailed description for each assumption, condition, exception, deviation, or request for waiver, as applicable. The offeror shall identify the portion of the solicitation and the offeror’s proposal that are affected.

iii. A statement identifying the proposal expiration period, for a period no less than that identified in Section L, Part A, paragraph 5.0.

iv. Completed Section K (including FAR 52.204-8, 52.204-24, 52.219-1 (DEV), and 252.204-7007.

v. Evidence from DCAA, DCMA, other federal civilian audit agencies, or a private accounting firm that, as of the proposal due date, the offeror’s accounting system has been audited and has been determined adequate and suitable for administration of a cost-reimbursable type of contract, or that the offeror has submitted evidence from a private accounting firm via Standard Form 1408, completed and signed by the private accounting firm that performed the audit. An Offeror that does not have an adequate accounting system may be determined ineligible for award. This relates solely to the responsibility determination, and as a result, the Government may find it necessary to have interchanges with Offeror(s) to make this determination, or access the risk of ability to perform related to the accounting system.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf