Amendment_0003_to_W91151-18-R-0098.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to modify FAR Clause 52.212-2 Evaluation of Commercial Items (OCT 14), Table 1 Combined/Technical Risk Ratings and Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method table.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-Jun-2018

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W91151-18-R-0098

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-May-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer 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 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 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 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 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.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

28-Jun-2018

CODE

MISSION AND INSTALLATION CONTRACTING

MISSION CONTRACTING OFFICE (MCO)

36000 DARNALL LOOP, ROOM 1300B

FORT HOOD TX 76544-5095

W91151 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W91151-18-R-0098

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

i. A single Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract will be awarded for this acquisition based on the overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the following three evaluation factors: Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Price. Offerors must propose to perform all aspects of the PWS.

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Price. The Mission Capability Factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance Factor and in accordance with FAR 15.304(e)(1), when combined all non-price factors are significantly more important than Price. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Mission Capability factor.

The Government may select for award that offer in which the Total Evaluated Price is not necessarily the lowest, but whose overall response is deemed sufficiently more advantageous to the Government so as to justify the payment of a higher price. Conversely, the Government may select for award the Offeror whose Total Evaluated Price is the lowest, when other responses are not sufficiently more advantageous so as to justify the payment of a higher price. The Government may reject any or all responses if such action is in the public interest; accept other than the lowest quote; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in the submitted responses.

ii. Offerors are required to submit a proposal that will be included in the final award document. The proposal must describe the Offeror’s approach to address the technical requirements. Award will encompass the entire PWS. No partial awards will be made.

iii. Award Without Discussions: It is the Government intention to award without discussions. As set forth in FAR 52.215-1 (f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)-Clarifications) and award without discussions. Accordingly, Offerors are advised to submit initial proposals that are fully and clearly satisfactory without the need for additional information or explanation and containing the Offeror's best terms from a technical and price standpoint.

iv. Competitive Range Determination: As set forth in FAR 15.306, in the event that the

Government concludes that discussions are necessary, the Contracting Officer may determine that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. The Contracting Officer may limit proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

1. FACTOR 1 - Mission Capability (Technical Approach) Subfactor (a) - Understanding the Requirement/Mission Subfactor (b) - Employee Management, Recruitment, Training and Retention

2. FACTOR 2 - Past Performance

3. FACTOR 3 - Price

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors as follows:

Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offerors’ methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will also be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the

RFP..

Evaluation criteria consist of three factors; Mission Capability (Technical Approach), Past Performance, and Price. The Mission Capability factor is divided into two Subfactors: (a) Understanding the Requirement/Mission and (b) Employee Management, Recruitment, Training and Retention. All Subfactors will be equally rated and no order of importance is stipulated. Failure of an offeror to provide required information pertaining to a Subfactor will result in a technical rating of unacceptable. An offeror must receive a technical rating of no less than acceptable to be eligible for award. The price will be evaluated to determine fair and reasonableness.

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel.

The Government’s evaluation team will use the source selection procedures outlined here to evaluate each Offeror’s capability to perform and demonstrate an understanding of the solicitation requirements. The evaluation team will rate each proposal based strictly on the proposal contents and will not assume performance or experience that is not specified in the Offeror’s proposal.

FACTOR 1 – Mission Capability (Technical Approach). The Government will evaluate technical proposals to determine the adequacy of each offeror's proposed approach to meeting the technical requirements of the PWS based on the subfactors identified below.

Subfactor (a) - Understanding the Requirement/Mission: The Government will evaluate the Offerors proposal to determine if it demonstrates an understanding of the process and procedures required to perform Aviation Support Services on a Federal Government installation to include the functions of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). In order to receive a higher than acceptable rating the Offerors proposal must demonstrate a thorough approach to and knowledge of aviation support processes and procedures. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to mitigate problems encountered and the effectiveness of those mitigation steps. The Government will evaluate the experience of each team member and or subcontractor. In order to receive a higher than acceptable rating the Offeror must propose team members and or subcontractors with extensive experience in aviation support.

Subfactor (b) - Employee Management, Recruitment, Training and Retention: The Government will evaluate this Subfactor to the degree that the Offeror’s proposal demonstrated an organizational structure that promotes the efficient and flexible utilization of the contractor’s personnel. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s provided methods of recruitment, retention, training and employee management that demonstrate an understanding of the special skills required in perform all the mission of the PWS. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan for employing key personnel for Aviation Support Services for compliance with PWS sections 1.6.10., 1.6.10.1, and 1.6.10.2. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on how much autonomy and authority key personnel will exercise in the daily operations of the contract. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed staffing plan to determine whether it demonstrates adequate coverage of all functional areas within the Part 5 (Specific Tasks) of the PWS. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to assess:

The Offeror's approach to tracking, scheduling and documenting recurring/refresher training. The Government will also evaluate the Job Qualification Standards (JQS) for proposed key personnel to determine if they meet the minimum standard of the PWS.

The Offeror’s ability to identify and mitigate problems encountered and the effectiveness of those mitigations.

The Offeror’s approach to managing a multi-skilled workforce; providing sufficient manpower and quickly recruiting and retaining the requisite skill sets necessary to support all functional areas of this requirement to include staffing to support unscheduled workload, cyclical events, and new and unknown requirements over the life of the contract.

The Offeror's proposed PM and alternate PM to determine if they have a Secret clearance upon contract start.

The Offeror's strategy for handling surges and slack periods including plans release or reassign personnel.

The Government will evaluate the resumes of each employee or prospective employee designated to fill key positions. In order to receive a higher than acceptable rating in this area key personnel qualification must exceed the minimum qualifications of exhibit Y in at least two areas.

The Mission Capability (Technical) Factor Ratings, described below include the consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and uncertainties of the offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the mission capability requirements. Subfactors are used for evaluation purposes to derive a factor rating – there is no separate rating assigned to the Subfactors and no order of importance is stipulated

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description Blue

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirement and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirement, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and /or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and /or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

FACTOR 2 –Past Performance. The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an Offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that offeror’s record of past performance. Past Performance is assessed by the Past Performance Team and is assigned a rating in the Past Performance factor of the evaluation. The Past Performance Team will conduct a performance risk assessment based on the quality of the offeror’s recent (within the past three years) and relevant past performance as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort.

Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the past performance assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), DoD Termination List, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPPIS), State Department Watch List, and Past Performance Questionnaires. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the offerors, it is incumbent upon the offerors to explain the relevance of the data provided.

Past Performance areas of evaluation include:

- Quality of Service

- Schedule

- Transition

- Safety Issues and Violations

- Management of Personnel and Materials

- Customer Satisfaction

- Business Relations

- Ability to obtain and retain a highly qualified workforce

Each offeror will receive a performance confidence assessment rating based on the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate 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.

Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three

(3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails to meet this condition is not considered relevant and therefore will not be evaluated.

Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be of similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature of work, size, magnitude, complexity, contract type, and scope to the services/products being procured under this solicitation. There are four levels of relevancy as shown on the table below. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance is a stronger predictor of future success and will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information provided in the proposal and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past. Offeror’s without a record of relevant past performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will receive and Unknown Confidence (Neutral) confidence rating.

a. The Past Performance factor will be assigned one of the ratings defined below.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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.

b. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well Offerors have performed on referenced contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

c. Assigning Ratings. Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings defined 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.

FACTOR 3 – Price. Price will not be scored or rated. Although price will not be scored or rated, price will be analyzed for reasonableness. Unreasonably proposed prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition.

The Government will determine whether prices are reasonable, complete, and

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

balanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) and (g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

a. The line items for Airfield Services, Ground and Flight Operations, and

Aviation Maintenance will be evaluated based on the offeror’s proposed price for the phase-in, base period and corresponding option years.

Travel will be evaluated as a common cost for all offeror’s at an estimated annual amount. Fixed price for travel shall be reviewed by the COR and forwarded to the KO for approval one week prior to each travel event.

b. As part of the price evaluation, the Government will evaluate the “Option to Extend Services” under FAR clause 52.217-8 by adding one-half of the Offeror’s final option period prices to the Offeror’s total price. Thus, the Offeror’s total price, for the purpose of evaluation, will include the phase-in, base period, first option, second option, third option, fourth option, and one-half of the fourth option. Offerors are required only to price the phase-in, base, first option, second option, third option, and fourth option.

Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential one-half year extension of services period.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)