A07_-_W56KGY-15-R-0016_0003_SF33.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. Contract ID Code Page Of

2. Amendment/Modification No.

3. Effective Date

4. Requisition/Purchase Req No.

5. Project No. (If applicable)

6. Issued By Code 7. Administered By (If other than Item 6) Code

8. Name And Address Of Contractor (No., Street, City, County, State and Zip Code)

9A. Amendment Of Solicitation No.

9B. Dated (See Item 11)

10A. Modification Of Contract/Order No.

10B. Dated (See Item 13) Code Facility Code

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 amendments: (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 ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS

It Modifies The Contract/Order No. As Described In Item 14.

A. This Change Order is Issued Pursuant To: 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 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 15C. Date Signed 16B. United States Of America 16C. Date Signed

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

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITIONS UNUSABLE

30-105-02 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

SEE SCHEDULE

X

Cost Plus Fixed Fee

0003 2015OCT26

W56KGY

ACC-APG Division C (W56KGY)

6001 Combat Drive

APG, MD 21005-1846

MATTHEW EBNER

EMAIL: MATTHEW.C.EBNER.CIV@MAIL.MIL

W56KGY-15-R-0016

2015SEP26

X

X

/SIGNED/

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 5

CONTINUATION SHEET

Reference No. of Document Being Continued Page of

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION A - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Buyer Name: MATTHEW EBNER

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCAP-CCC/(443)861-4805

Type of Contract 1: Cost Plus Fixed Fee

Type of Contract 2: Firm Fixed Price

Kind of Contract: Service Contracts

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

The purpose of this Amendment 0003 to solicitation W56KGY-15-R-0016, is to update Section M to incorporate the following definitions:

1. 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.

2. Significant strength - an aspect of an offeror's proposal that appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance.

3. Significant weakness - a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

4. 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.

5. Weakness - a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

*Please also refer to the Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.001.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0004 ***

2 5

W56KGY-15-R-0016 0003

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1

Basis for Award_______________

The award will be made based on the best overall proposal, using the tradeoff process, that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to three (3) evaluation factors: technical, past performance, and cost/price. The technical factor is significantly more important than past performance, which is more important than the cost/price factor. The non-cost factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the cost/price factor. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offeror or the highest technically rated proposal. Offerors shall provide technical solutions for the requirements included in the PSS-T TO performance work statement (PWS).

The burden is on offerors to demonstrate that required technical criteria are satisfied; required technical capabilities should be demonstrated not by mere conclusory statements, but by specific approaches and examples. Offerors are cautioned that mere parroting of the technical requirements or the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Notwithstanding the preceding, Table 12 contains a complete list of PWS items in which the offeror may acknowledge compliance in lieu of providing a narrative.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors [except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)]. Therefore, the offerors initial proposal should contain its best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint.

However, under FAR Subpart 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government reserves the right to hold discussions, if necessary. The PCO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range. Proposals with an omission or unclear proposals may be judged to mean the offeror does not fully understand the requirements or understand what it takes to meet or exceed the requirements, regardless of the proposed price. In that case, the offeror may be found unacceptable and ineligible for award. The Government intends to make a single award and does not intend to make multiple awards under this solicitation.

B. Factors to Be Evaluated

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government based upon consideration of non-cost/price and cost/price factors.

Factor I Technical: Evaluation of the offeror's proposal shall address paragraphs 3.1.7, Demobilization, and 3.2.7, FMS, of the

Base PWS and every paragraph of the TO PWS. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the "Evaluation

Approach," paragraph C.1 of this section. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for the technical factor (to include all elements).

Factor II Past performance: Each offerors past performance will be reviewed to determine recency, relevancy and confidence assessment. To receive consideration for award, an offeror cannot receive a rating of no confidence for the past performance factor.

Factor III Cost/price: This PSS-T contract shall be an IDIQ type contract, with FFP, cost-no fee, and CPFF-TF TOs and delivery orders (DO) as requirements dictate. The Government will evaluate the requirements through price analysis of the FFP items and perform cost realism analysis of each offerors proposed cost for the cost reimbursable effort. The total evaluated price is the result of adding the FFP price as calculated in the Government provided workbook to the probable cost for TO 0001. To receive consideration for award, an offeror cannot receive a rating of undeterminable for the cost/price factor.

C. Evaluation Approach

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. Technical Factor: The overarching evaluation approach for the technical factor is as follows:

Understanding of the Requirement/Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the _________________________________________________________ proposed approach shows an understanding of the requirement and is feasible. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent of which successful performance based upon proven resources, processes, methods, tools, and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule. The sanitized cost information for TO 0001 will undergo realism analysis to determine if the proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offerors technical proposal.

The technical factor evaluates the offeror's proposed technical approach for paragraphs 3.1.7, Demobilization, and 3.2.7, FMS, of the

Base PWS and every paragraph of the TO PWS. This evaluation consists of program management and operations, and logistics and engineering support sections. These technical sections will be reviewed for the following elements:

a) Section 1 Program Management Support and Operations Evaluate proposal narrative for evidence that the offerors approach demonstrates the capability to manage both internal and Subcontractor work efforts and resources, under normal operations and under surge conditions; obtain value added resources, services and supplies for both PSS-T medium and large platforms; minimize and manage performance risks; and manage and report program objectives. Evaluate narrative for evidence of the offerors approach demonstrating the capability to support theater-wide and site operational requirements to maximize operational availability, under normal operations and under surge conditions. Evaluate the draft management plan for offerors capability and established processes to respond to surge requirements, manage complex projects, manage a large organization of personnel, manage a variety of subcontractors, track requirements, and mitigate risks.

b) Section 2 Engineering Support Evaluate proposal narrative for evidence of the offerors ability to manage the technical baseline, integrate new capabilities and commonality, and appropriately apply engineering processes to meet system requirements.

Evaluate narrative for evidence of the offerors capability to sustain and support current and future operational requirements. In addition to the proposal narrative, evaluate the offerors draft Contractor system engineering management plan and draft ground control station (GCS) commonality plan as part of this section. Evaluate the draft GCS commonality plan for evidence of established processes, expertise depth, product knowledge, applicable experience, technical approach, and division of labor.

c) Section 3 Logistics Support Evaluate proposal narrative for evidence of the offerors ability to reliably support operations

3 5

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

and maximize operational availability; develop and update technical manuals; manage transportation and reset requirements; implement training for operator/maintainers; and maximize repair process efficiencies. Evaluate narrative for evidence that the offerors approach demonstrates the capability to sustain and support current and future operational requirements.

The technical factor ratings excerpted in Table 1 focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks, and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The rating depicted in Table 1 indicates how well the offeror's proposal meets the technical requirement. For the purpose of this evaluation, the following definitions apply:

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.

Significant strength - an aspect of an offeror's proposal that appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance.

Significant weakness - a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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.

Weakness - a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

*Please also refer to the Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.001.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

See Attachment 0015.

2. Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the offeror's record of recent and relevant performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS utilizing the questionnaire in Appendix C. Based on the guidance set forth in Appendix D, the SSEB will evaluate the proposals submitted and obtain additional information (through the SSEB

Chairperson/PCO) from the Contractor (when needed to perform this process).

a. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror's (and major Subcontractor's) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance, and management of Subcontractors. Major Subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror's overall team who are expected to perform 15 percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement and/or problem, in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent (within the past three (3) years of the issue date of the request for proposal (RFP) and relevant efforts in their proposal. Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts involving aerostats that are essentially the same as or similar in scope and complexity, considering dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting/teaming required by the RFP, with a minimum of six (6) months of completed performance within the three (3) year recency period. In the case of an offeror without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the

Contractor and their current and past performance under federal, state or local Government or commercial contracts for same or similar services under the NAICS code 541330, for engineering services, including the DoD exception for military and aerospace equipment and military weapons. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three (3) years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past three (3) years without regard to the contract award date.

b. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts, TOs, and/or DOs for the prime offeror and each of its major proposed Subcontractors in performance or awarded during the past three (3) years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. Offerors shall provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency POCs. The

Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

c. The past performance factor considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are two (2) aspects to the past performance evaluation:

recency/relevancy and performance confidence assessment.

i. RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror's past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The following criteria in Table 2 will be used to establish what is relevant, which shall include services/efforts involving aerostats that are essentially the same as or similar in scope and complexity, considering dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

See Attachment 0015.

ii. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: Assess the quality of the offeror's past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the Contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from past performance questionnaires, interviews, Contractors performance assessment rating system, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment. The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating in Table 3. The ratings in Table 3 consider the assessed quality and relevancy of the recent efforts gathered. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

4 5

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

The degree of relevancy will be evaluated for each provided reference; however, the prime and major subcontractors will each receive an overall confidence assessment rating.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments

See Attachment 0015.

3. Cost/Price Factor

a. The total evaluated price is the result of the FFP pricing as detailed in the FFP pricing workbook plus the probable cost of TO

0001.

b. The FFP pricing workbook will calculate the FFP evaluation price per FFP subline item number (SLIN) as follows:

The FFP proposed unit price per range will be multiplied by the Government provided range weighting, to develop the Weighted Evaluated

Range Price. The Weighted Evaluated Range Price will be totaled to develop a Weighted Unit Price. The Weighted Unit Price will be multiplied by the Government provided evaluation quantity per FFP SLIN, resulting in the SLIN Evaluation Price for each FFP SLIN. The sum of the FFP SLIN Evaluation Prices will result in the total FFP evaluation price. An example of this calculation is provided in Table

4.

Table 4. Example Calculation of Evaluation Price

See Attachment 0015.

The proposed FFP unit pricing will be evaluated through price analysis in accordance with FAR Part 15.404-1(b) and for balance in accordance with FAR Part 15.404-1(g). For purposes of evaluation only, major subcomponents are identified by SLIN in Tables 5-7 for PSS-

T Medium and Tables 8-10 for PSS-T Large. The manufacturer and part number are listed in each corresponding SLIN. These items are brand name specific. Substitute parts will not be evaluated.

Table 5. Evaluation Criteria for PSS-T Medium, SLIN 0003AA, per Year

See Attachment 0015.

Table 6. Evaluation Criteria for PSS-T Medium, SLINs 0003AB, 0003AC, and 0003AE, per Year

See Attachment 0015.

Table 7. Evaluation Criteria for PSS-T Medium, SLIN 0003AD, per Year

See Attachment 0015.

Table 8. Evaluation Criteria for PSS-T Large, SLINs 0003AF, 0003AK, and 0003AL, per Year

See Attachment 0015.

Table 9. Evaluation Criteria for PSS-T Large, SLINs 0003AG and 0003AJ, per Year

See Attachment 0015.

Table 10. Evaluation Criteria for PSS-T Large, SLIN 0003AH, per Year

See Attachment 0015.

c. TO 0001 is representative of the CPFF-TF and cost-no fee effort to be ordered under this IDIQ. The proposed cost for TO 0001 will be evaluated through cost realism analysis to develop the probable cost. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and should reflect the Governments best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the offerors proposal. The probable cost shall be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. The probable cost is determined by adjusting each offerors proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis.

d. In the event an offeror does not propose in accordance with the solicitation terms and conditions or an offeror is determined to be technically unacceptable, no cost realism adjustments will be made to the cost proposal for TO 0001. The proposed cost will be evaluated as undeterminable.

e. In the event that sufficient information is not available to support the proposed CPFF-TF and cost-no fee costs and an adjustment of the proposed costs to determine the probable cost cannot be made with the information provided in the proposal, the probable cost will be labeled undeterminable and the offeror will not be eligible for award.

4. The Government will review the offerors miscellaneous volume for consistency with the offerors technical and cost volumes.

Inconsistencies between the miscellaneous volume and the technical volume may be considered in the technical factor evaluation and inconsistencies between the miscellaneous volume and the cost volume may be considered in the cost factor evaluation.

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

5 5