Solicitation Amendment W50S8X26QA0220001 SF 30.pdf

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 electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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 NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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.)

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

Evaluation and Basis for Award

1. Basis for Award

1.1 The Government intends to issue a firm-fixed-price purchase order to the responsible vendor whose quotation complies with the material requirements of this Request for Quotations and represents the best value to the Government.

1.2 The Government will evaluate quotations using the following factors:

Factor 1 -- Price

Factor 2 -- Past Performance

Price and past performance are approximately equal in importance.

1.3 The Government will not conduct a separate technical evaluation. Quotations will be reviewed to determine whether they comply with the material requirements of the RFQ and Performance Work Statement. A quotation that takes exception to a material requirement may be ineligible for award.

1.4 Compliance with the material requirements of the RFQ and the Government's responsibility determination are award-eligibility determinations, not separate comparative evaluation factors.

The Government may waive minor informalities or immaterial defects.

2. Comparative Evaluation

2.1 The Government will conduct a comparative evaluation of quotations eligible for award.

Quotations will be compared directly with one another under each evaluation factor and overall to determine which quotation is comparatively most advantageous and represents the best value to the Government.

2.2 The Government will identify and consider meaningful comparative differences, benefits, and performance risks. An aspect of a quotation that merely satisfies an RFQ requirement will not, by itself, be considered a comparative advantage.

W50S8X26QA0220001

2.3 The Government will not assign adjectival ratings, color ratings, numerical scores, or point scores. The Government will not determine comparative advantage merely by counting favorable or unfavorable observations. The significance and expected effect of each observation on successful performance will be more important than the number identified. The Government will consider the significance, expected benefit, and performance implications of each comparative difference.

2.4 The Government may compare all quotations at the same time or compare them successively.

Any preliminary best-value determination may be reconsidered, and no selection will be final until the Government has evaluated all quotations eligible for award.

2.5 The sequence in which quotations are reviewed or compared is administrative and does not establish an evaluation preference. The final award decision will consider the entire evaluation record and all quotations eligible for award.

2.6 The Government may issue the purchase order based on the initial quotations without requesting clarifications or revisions. The Government may communicate with vendors or request revised quotations when the Contracting Officer determines that doing so is appropriate. Any exchanges will be conducted consistent with the simplified procedures applicable to this acquisition and the requirement to treat vendors fairly.

3. Price

3.1 The Government will evaluate each vendor's total quoted price for the complete requirement, including all labor, supervision, materials, supplies, equipment, transportation, disposal, and other costs necessary to perform the Performance Work Statement.

3.2 The Government will compare total quoted prices and evaluate each quotation for price completeness, mathematical accuracy, and reasonableness. The Government must determine the prospective awardee's price to be fair and reasonable before award.

4. Past Performance

4.1 The Government will qualitatively compare the recency, relevance, and quality of available past-performance information to determine whether one vendor's performance record provides greater, lesser, or similar confidence in successful performance of the requirement.

Recency, relevance, and quality are considerations within the Past Performance factor. They are not separately weighted subfactors, and no single consideration or past-performance example is necessarily controlling.

4.2 Recency. Past performance is recent when the effort was ongoing or completed during the three years preceding the quotation due date. The Government may give greater consideration to more recent performance when it is more predictive of successful performance.

4.3 Relevance. The Government will determine relevance based on the similarity of the prior effort to the work required by the Performance Work Statement. Relevant efforts may include providing comprehensive administrative and unit program management support. Specific examples of relevant experience include, but are not limited to:

Unit Training Management: Managing and developing training programs, including formal school quotas, and coordinating with higher headquarters (e.g., NGB/A1 & NGB/A3).

Personnel and Administrative Support: Managing unit manning documents, special duty pay, security clearances, and self-assessment programs.

Program and Systems Management: Experience with military and Department of Defense systems such as the Defense Information System for Security (DISS), Defense Travel System (DTS), Air National Guard Reserve Order Writing System (AROWS), and Management Internal Control Toolset (MICT).

Support to Specialized Units: Experience working with AFSPECWAR units, operational units within the US Special Operations Forces (SOF) community, or Air Force Rescue units.

In determining relevance, the Government may consider similarities in scope, magnitude, complexity, duration, frequency of service, schedule, site conditions, and other characteristics that affect whether the prior effort is predictive of successful performance.

4.4 Quality. The Government may consider the quality and effectiveness of the vendor's prior performance, including:

Quality of work;

Timeliness and schedule performance;

Safety;

Responsiveness and customer service;

Compliance with contract requirements; and The amount of Government oversight or corrective action required.

4.5 Vendors may submit no more than three recent and relevant past performance references. The Government may consider each effort individually and the vendor's performance record collectively.

4.6 The Government may consider past performance information from any reasonably available source, including information submitted by the vendor, CPARS, customer references, SPRS supplier risk assessments, the Government's prior experience with the vendor, and other Government or commercial sources. The Government may contact some, all, or none of the references provided.

4.7 Past performance information will not necessarily receive equal consideration. The Government may give greater consideration to information that is more recent, relevant, or otherwise predictive of successful performance of this requirement.

4.8 A vendor for which no recent or relevant past performance information is available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably solely because of the absence of such information. However, a favorable record of recent and relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous than the absence of a performance record when the Government reasonably determines that the favorable record provides greater confidence in successful performance.

5. Best-Value Decision

5.1 The Government will consider the comparative past performance benefits and risks together with the differences in total quoted prices. The best value determination will be based on the Contracting Officer's reasonable business judgment and will not be determined through a mathematical formula or mechanical counting of favorable observations.

5.2 The Government may select a higher-priced quotation when it reasonably determines that the comparative past performance benefit or reduction in performance risk merits the price premium.

The Government is not required to assign a dollar value to a past performance benefit.

5.3 Conversely, the Government may select a lower-priced quotation when the comparative past performance differences do not justify paying the higher price. When quotations are comparatively similar under Past Performance, the lower-priced quotation will represent the better value.

*** END OF NARRATIVE ***

KO FOR CAANG DO NOT DELETE, 680 MACON RD RM 34

MOFFETT FIELD, CA 94035-0103

UNITED STATES

AUSTIN BREAULT, EMAIL: AUSTIN.BREAULT.1@US.AF.MIL TELEPHONE: 6506039276

AdminBy:

SCD: PAS:

- Update Section M to clarify section 4.3 Relevance.