Attachment 3 - RFP Amendment 0001.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 revise paragraph M.2 in Section M of the RFP and to amend the closing date. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 26-Mar-2024

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 N6449824R4045

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-Mar-2024

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 X is extended, 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 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

26-Mar-2024

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER PHILA

CODE 0243, KRISTEN CELLA

KRISTEN.M.CELLA.CIV@US.NAVY.MIL

5001 SOUTH BROAD STREET

PHILADELPHIA PA 19112

N64498 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6449824R4045

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 22-Apr-2024 04:00 PM to 26-Apr-2024 04:00 PM.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M: BASIS FOR AWARD

M.1. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will utilize the subjective Tradeoff source selection process. This process allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and price, and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal to achieve a best value/amongst the best value contract award(s).

The basis for award of a contract as a result of this solicitation will be an integrated assessment by the Contracting Officer of the results of the evaluation based on the evaluation factors and their importance as indicated below. The integrated assessment will include consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals. Ultimately, the source selection decision will take into account the Offeror's capability to meet the requirements of this solicitation on a timely and cost effective basis. The Government reserves such right of flexibility in conducting the evaluation as is necessary to assure placement of a contract is in the Government's best interest. Accordingly, the Government may award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or other than the Offeror with the highest evaluation rating.

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, in the Government’s estimation, provides the best value in response to the requirement.

The Government will determine the number of contracts to be awarded under Solicitation No. N6449824R4045 in accordance with the considerations depicted in FAR 16.504(c)(1)(ii)(A).

M.2 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor (1) Quality Assurance will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis and will not be considered in the best value tradeoff decision, however an Acceptable rating in this factor is required to be eligible for award. Factor

(2) Machining Capability, Factor (3) Weld Procedure and Factor (4) Past Performance are listed in descending order of importance. All best value evaluation factors other than Total Evaluated Price, when combined, are approximately equal to Total Evaluated Price. However, when non-price factors are rated more equally between Offerors, Total Evaluated Price becomes more of a deciding factor in making the best value.

M.3 EVALUATION APPROACH

FACTOR 1 – QUALITY ASSURANCE

The Offeror must meet one (1) of the following requirements in order to be rated “Acceptable” for the Quality Assurance sub-factor (a):

1) Offeror will be evaluated on their QMS acceptance letter meeting the requirements of MIL-I-45208 or ASQ/ANSI/ISO 9001:2015 from a Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) QMS Acceptance Authority or appropriate directorate.

2) The Offeror’s QMS, Level 1, and Level 2 procedures that have been submitted to NSWCPD will be evaluated based on whether their content meets the requirements of MIL-I-45208 or ASQ/ANSI/ISO

9001:2015.

The Offeror must meet the following requirements in order to be rated “Acceptable” for the Quality Assurance sub-factor (b):

1) The Offerer will be evaluated upon a review of their submitted QMS, Level 1 and Level 2 processes and procedures on whether their content meets the requirements of MINIMUM STANDARD

QUALITY CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS FOR MATERIAL PROCUREMENT,

MODIFICATION, REPAIR, OR OVERHAUL OF MATERIAL APPENDIX A.

The Offeror must meet one (1) of the following requirements in order to be rated “Acceptable” for the Quality Assurance sub-factor (c):

1) The Offerer will be evaluated upon a review of the submitted Level I Product oriented technical visit or Level I supplier audit, within the last three years, on weather its contents meets SECNAVINST 4855.38.

2) If an acceptable/satisfactory rated Level I Product oriented technical visit or Level I supplier audit has not been performed in the last three years, the Prime contractor will make his/her facilities available for a Level I Supplier audit conducted by the NSWCPD C/00Q Level I Program Office or delegated by NSWCPD C/00Q Level I Program Office to the participating Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Office.

Factors 1 Technical Acceptability Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation and is found “Acceptable” for all sub-factors described above.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation and is found “Unacceptable” for at least 1 sub-factor described above.

FACTOR 2 – MACHINING CAPABILITY

Proposals will be evaluated based upon a comparison of the Offeror’s demonstrated understanding of the scope of work described in Section C of the solicitation. Evaluation will be based on offerors demonstration of experience with deep-hole drilling, and the offerors technical capability to create high aspect ratio holes. Offeror shall provide evidence of appropriate tooling/machinery to support these capabilities, or alternatively a relationship with a sub-vendor who can provide these services. Offeror will also be evaluated on their understanding of measurement data reporting in accordance with ASME ASME Y14.45-2021, method C.

Factor 2 Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Outstanding Proposal indicates the Offeror has an exceptional approach and understanding of the technical requirements, has experience with deep hole drilling, and in-house technical capability (special tooling) to accomplish high aspect ratio holes in accordance with the technical requirements.

Offeror also demonstrates experience and understanding of data reporting in accordance with ASME Y14.45-2021, method C.

Good Proposal indicates the Offeror has a thorough understanding of the technical requirements, has experience with deep hole drilling, and has access to special tooling needed to accomplish high aspect ratio holes in accordance with the technical requirements, whether it be in-house or sub-contracted to a capable sub-vendor. Offeror also demonstrates experience and understanding of data reporting in accordance with ASME Y14.45-2021, method C.

Acceptable Proposal indicates the Offeror has an acceptable understanding of the technical requirements, and has access to special tooling needed to accomplish high aspect ratio holes in accordance with the technical requirements, whether it be in-house or sub-contracted to a capable sub-vendor.

Marginal Proposal indicates the offeror has an understanding of the technical requirements, but has no experience with either deep hole drilling, nor creating high aspect ratio holes. The offeror has access to special tooling needed to accomplish high aspect ratio holes in accordance with the technical requirements, but will require the machining efforts to be sub-contracted to a capable sub-vendor due to their lack of knowledge in the subject matter.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation. Contractor does not have access to special tooling needed to accomplish high aspect ratio holes in accordance with the technical requirements, whether it be in-house or sub-contracted to a capable sub-vendor, does not demonstrates experience and understanding of data reporting in accordance with ASME Y14.45- 2021, method C, and has no experience with deep hole drilling.

FACTOR 3 – WELD PROCEDURE

Proposals will be evaluated based upon a comparison of the Offeror’s demonstrated experience to perform welding, or is working towards obtaining qualification to perform welding, in accordance with the technical specification cited in section C of the solicitation. Consideration will be based upon the offerors qualification to perform welding IAW the technical requirements cited in section C of the solicitation and the aggregate amount of experience.

Proposals will be evaluated to verify objective quality evidence (OQE) of said weld procedure, in the form of a Weld Procedure Specification (WPS) and Procedure Qualification Report (PQR). If an offeror is not currently qualified to perform welding in accordance with the technical specification cited in section C, proposals will be evaluated to verify OQE (in the form of a PQR) of the offerors intent to obtain said welding qualifications by the time of award/work start; however technical preference will be given to offerors who demonstrate upfront qualification.

Factor 3 Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Outstanding Proposal indicates that the offeror has provided OQE demonstrating that they are fully qualified to perform welding in accordance with the technical requirements, and has demonstrated vast experience in welding this material in accordance to the technical requirements outlined in section C of the solicitation.

Good Proposal indicates that the offeror has provided OQE demonstrating that they are fully qualified to perform welding in accordance with the technical requirements, and has demonstrated experience in welding this material in accordance to the technical requirements outlined in section C of the solicitation.

Acceptable Proposal indicates that the offeror is not currently qualified to perform this welding, but has provided OQE demonstrating their intent to obtain the necessary qualifications. The contractor has provided OQE of past successful experience with welding in accordance to the technical requirements outlined in section C of the solicitation.

Marginal Proposal indicates that the offeror is not currently qualified to perform this welding, but has provided OQE demonstrating their intent to obtain the necessary qualifications. The contractor has no experience with welding in accordance with the technical requirements outlined in section C of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation; offeror is not qualified to perform the welding and did not provide OQE demonstrating their intent to obtain the necessary qualifications.

FACTOR 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Past performance information will be used to evaluate a Contractor's actions for similar or directly related work. Past performance will be evaluated based on evidence of the offerors experience with working on submarine machinery components. Preference will be given to offerors who have worked on components associated with the SUBSAFE boundary, through hull shafts, and free-flood area equipment/material. Also, preference will be provided to vendors who provide evidence of past experience with machining Inconel material.

There are (3) three aspects to the past performance evaluation: Recency, relevancy, and quality (including general trends in Contractor performance and source of information). The first is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is considered work performed within the past (3) three years. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

With respect to relevancy, past performance of greater relevancy 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. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)) these are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror. The past performance evaluation conducted 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.

Factor 4 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved the same or 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.

Factor 4 Performance Confidence Assessments

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 5 – TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE

The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. As defined in FAR 15.404, 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.

PRICE EVALUATION

Price will be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) for Firm-Fixed Price CLINS 0001 & 0002. The proposed price for the Offeror’s proposal will be arrived at by multiplying the offered price for each CLIN in Section B times the quantity for that CLIN, and totaling the result for all CLINs.

Total quantities and ODC amounts are estimates only to establish ceiling amounts, and do not necessarily reflect the total amount of ODCs that the Government will actually order. The Government may order less than the total quantities or may order up to the maximum quantities listed in Section B.

In the absence of adequate price competition, the Contracting Officer may request additional data per FAR 15.403-3 and as described in the solicitation provision 52.215-7010, Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data (JUL 2019).

M.4 COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION INSTRUCTIONS

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint.

However, the Government reserves the right to enter into discussions with Offerors as it is determined by the Contracting Officer to be in the Government’s best interest.

M.5 DISCUSSION/FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

If the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are to be held, they shall indicate to, or discuss with, each Offeror still being considered for award; significant weaknesses, deficiencies, adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of Contracting Officer judgment. At the conclusion of discussions, each Offeror still in the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a final proposal revision. A final cut-off date for receipt of final proposal revisions will be established by the Contracting Officer.

(End of Summary of Changes)