SPRWA121R0009Amd0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE Page 1

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

SPRWA1-21-R-0009-0003

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

5 AUG 2021

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

FD2060-20-00200

5. PROJECT NO (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE

DLA AVIATION, DLR PROCUREMENT OPERATIONS (AW)

235 BYRON ST STE 19A

ROBINS AFB GA 31098-1813

BUYER: Christine O. Tomlinson/SPRWA1 christine.tomlinson@us.af.mil Phone: (478) 926- 4970

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6) CODESPRWA1

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

CODE

X

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

SPRWA121R0009

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-JUN-2021

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended. 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 Items 8 and 15, and returning 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 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 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 1 copies to the issuing office.

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

FMS REQUIREMENT

ROUTINE

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

BY ________________________________________________________

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY ____________________________________________________

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

FACILITY CODE

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

PRESCRIBED BY GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

X

X X

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.

SPRWA1-21-R-0009-0003

Continuation of block 14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

The RFP is amended as follows:

a. Section M of the RFP has been revised as seen below.

b. As a result of this amendment, the solicitation closing date remains 06 August 2021, and is not extended.

SECTION M PROVISION

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY AND SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION ACCEPTABILITY

(IF APPLICABLE) WITH PAST PERFORMANCE AND PRICE TRADEOFF)

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

IAW FAR 13.106-2(b), FAR 14.201-5(c), FAR 15.204-5(c):

For the purposes of award, offers will be evaluated on the following factors, listed in descending order of importance:

Evaluation Factors* Order of Importance* Past Performance 1 Cost/Price 2 Small Business Participation Acceptable/Unacceptable**

*Source Selection Methodology described in paragraph A.

** Small Business Participation is not ranked in relative importance. Your Proposal must be acceptable for this factor in order to be considered for the Best Value Trade-Off between Past performance and Cost/Price.

A. Source Selection Methodology This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300, as supplemented in PGI 215.300-90 to make a trade-off assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award up to 3 contracts as a result of this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror(s) who give(s) the Government the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. A decision on small business participation acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors with acceptable Small Business Participation, tradeoffs will be made between past/present performance and cost/price, with past/present performance being considered significantly more important than cost/price. This may result in an award to a higher-rated, higher-priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will utilize the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors described in the solicitation. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. The Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offerors whose proposals conform to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described below.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the

Source Selection Authority, 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.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

C. Volume II, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. More recent and more relevant performance usually has a greater impact in the confidence assessment than less recent and less relevant performance. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as, but not limited to, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

3. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts.

The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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.

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

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Offerors without a record of past performance or for whom information is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

5. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the three (3) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror, when subcontracting possibilities existed, whether the offeror awarded subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 (Subcontracting Plan) only applies to large businesses.) If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, the Government will evaluate whether or not it was the offeror’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

D. Volume III, Small Business Participation

1. General: Each offeror’s Small Business Participation proposal shall be evaluated, based on the elements below, to determine if the offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The Small Business Participation proposal addresses each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

i) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided, including the company names with CAGE codes the offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract; and,

ii) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by these proposed firms is provided;

and,

iii) The associated objectives expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars is provided. Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why an objective is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals.

The associated goals in paragraph iii above in the offeror’s Small Business Participation proposal will be evaluated against the FY2021 DoD Small Business Subcontracting objectives:

Business Size Sub Small Business 32.25% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5% Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone)

3%

Woman-Owned Small Business

(WOSB)

5%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

3%

2. Small Business Participation Rating: The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small Business Program objectives. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One rating will be assigned to the Small Business Participation factor.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not indicate an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

E. Volume IV, Cost/Price Proposal Factor

1. Price Factor. The offeror’s proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance in accordance with paragraphs a. and b. below. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with the instructions on the Pricing Matrix Attachment in Section J of the RFP and paragraph c. below. Each offeror must propose to all production line items. Offerors required to complete the First Article requirement must propose to each line item applicable to the First Article and corresponding data line items in addition to the production line items.

The contractor must not provide a “No Bid” for any item on the Pricing Matrix to be priced. If a “No Bid” is provided during the initial Best Value Award evaluation, the offer may be deemed unacceptable for failure to follow the solicitation instructions and not considered for award. Allowing “No Bid” actions during the initial Best Value determination phase could serve to create an imbalance between contractors. This overall TEP is used as when determining overall Best Value. Offerors should search out alternative, responsive options for pricing NSNs in lieu of providing a “No Bid”.

a. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained, or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

b. Balance: A Total Evaluated Price will be calculated as outlined on the Pricing Matrix Attachment in Section J of the RFP. Proposals shall be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for individual items (unit price multiplied by the corresponding evaluation quantity) identified as applicable to all periods. The TEP shall include all costs associated with providing the final item to the Government. The total sell price of each item will include the offeror’s service costs and any other costs associated with UID as appropriate. No additional cost for items will be paid by the Government during contract performance.

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items in any ordering period is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced, separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

c. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP calculated in accordance with the attachment titled “Pricing Matrix” will be used in the trade-off decision relative to initial contract awards. All unit prices should be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.