Amendment 01.pdf

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 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 your 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.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

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

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

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

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

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.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. 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 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)

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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

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

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

SP4701

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

Andrea E. Nicolucci

See attached pages.

DLA Contracting Services Office - Philadelphia

700 ROBBINS AVENUE

PHILADELPHIA PA 19111

Attention: A. Nicolucci 215-737-2698

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION

NO.

BAA-0004-21

1 4

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07/14/2021

4/26/2022

N/A

A. Referencing Subsistence Network BAA 004-21, pages 19 through 21 is hereby amended as follows for clarification regarding the Evaluation Rating Scheme:

DELETE

Evaluation Rating Scheme

Proposals will be assigned a rating based on the adjectival ratings below.

Factor 1 – Overall Scientific and Technical Merit (Feasibility)

Acceptable (A): Response demonstrates generally satisfactory scientific and technical merit and soundness of the technical concept to advance the state-of-the-art or increase knowledge or understanding in an Area of Interest related to Metal Casting. Probability of success is reasonable as the offeror’s response includes strengths and weaknesses. Any weaknesses identified in the offeror’s response are not substantial enough to adversely impact respondent’s strengths and may be corrected through negotiations or clarifications. No deficiencies are identified in the response.

Not Acceptable (NA): Response demonstrates generally unsatisfactory scientific and technical merit and soundness of the technical concept to advance the state-of-the-art or increase knowledge or understanding in an Area of Interest related to Metal Casting. Response may contain some strengths, but probability of success is low as the offeror’s response contains significant weaknesses or deficiencies that are unlikely to be corrected through negotiations or clarifications.

Factor 2 – Viability

Acceptable (A): The proposed effort is viable and somewhat likely to transition into an operational capability. The offeror demonstrates a reasonable understanding of working with DLA and DoD and of relevant DLA and DoD policy. Response may contain strengths. Weaknesses of the offeror’s response, where and if applicable, are not substantial enough to conversely impact respondent’s strengths. Weaknesses identified may be corrected through negotiations or clarifications. No deficiencies are identified in the response.

Not Acceptable (NA): Viability of the proposed effort is questionable and it is not likely to transition into an operational capability. The offeror demonstrates little or no understanding of working with DLA and DoD and of relevant DLA and DoD policy. Response may contain some strengths, but identified significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies are determined as having a critical impact on successfully fulfilling the Government’s requirement.

Factor 3 – Desirability

Acceptable (A): The proposed solution offers some evidence of benefits to DLA and has characteristics such as low barriers to transition, simplicity, ease of use, physical dimensions, etc. that make it somewhat likely to be adopted by DLA and industry. Response may contain strengths. Weaknesses of the offeror’s response, where and if applicable, are not substantial enough to conversely impact respondent’s strengths.

Weaknesses identified may be corrected through negotiations or clarifications. No deficiencies are identified in the response.

Not Acceptable (NA): The proposed solution offers little or no evidence of benefits to DLA and has few or no characteristics such as low barriers to transition, simplicity, ease of use, physical dimensions, etc. that make it somewhat likely to be adopted by DLA and industry. Response may contain some strengths, but identification of significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies are determined as having a critical impact on successfully fulfilling the Government’s requirement.

Factor 4 – Past Performance, Capabilities, and Related Experience

Acceptable (A): Response demonstrates generally satisfactory experience which is relevant to an area of research interest in the BAA. Response demonstrates satisfactory past performance in implementing or sustaining systems or processes which are similar to those being proposed. Response generally demonstrates satisfactory overall past performance as it relates to meeting technical, schedule, cost and/or other objectives/requirements. Reasonable probability of successfully accomplishing the DLA requirement based on experience and past performance.

Not Acceptable (NA): Response demonstrates generally unsatisfactory overall experience which is not relevant in managing and performing tasks pertinent to an area of research interest in the BAA, and unsatisfactory experience in implementing or sustaining systems or processes to those being proposed. Generally, demonstrates unsatisfactory overall past performance. Low or no probability of successfully accomplishing the DLA requirement based on past performance.

Neutral: The respondent has no relevant record of past performance. Respondent will not be rated favorably or unfavorably.

Factor 5: Cost Realism A cost realism analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d) Cost realism analysis. Realism will be based on an evaluation of the respondent’s cost proposal to determine whether the estimated cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the respondent’s technical proposal (inclusive of cost management techniques). In addition, funds availability will be a basis for selection.

ADD

Evaluation Rating Scheme

Proposals will be assigned a rating based on the adjectival ratings below.

Factor 1 – Overall Scientific and Technical Merit (Feasibility)

Acceptable (A): Response demonstrates generally satisfactory scientific and technical merit and soundness of the technical concept to advance the state-of-the-art or increase knowledge or understanding in an Area of Interest related to the Subsistence Network. Probability of success is reasonable as the offeror’s response includes strengths and weaknesses. Any weaknesses identified in the offeror’s response are not substantial enough to adversely impact respondent’s strengths and may be corrected through negotiations or clarifications. No deficiencies are identified in the response.

Not Acceptable (NA): Response demonstrates generally unsatisfactory scientific and technical merit and soundness of the technical concept to advance the state-of-the-art or increase knowledge or understanding in an Area of Interest related to the Subsistence Network. Response may contain some strengths, but probability of success is low as the offeror’s response contains significant weaknesses or deficiencies that are unlikely to be corrected through negotiations or clarifications.

Factor 2 – Research Management and Organizational Structure (Viability and Desirability)

Acceptable (A): The proposed effort is viable and somewhat likely to transition into an operational capability. The offeror demonstrates a reasonable understanding of working with DLA and DoD and of relevant DLA and DoD policy.

The proposed solution offers some evidence of benefits to DLA and has characteristics such as low barriers to transition, simplicity, ease of use, physical dimensions, etc. that make it somewhat likely to be adopted by DLA and industry. Response may contain strengths. Weaknesses of the offeror’s response, where and if applicable, are not substantial enough to conversely impact respondent’s strengths.

Weaknesses identified may be corrected through negotiations or clarifications. No deficiencies are identified in the response.

Not Acceptable (NA): Viability of the proposed effort is questionable and it is not likely to transition into an operational capability. The offeror demonstrates little or no understanding of working with DLA and DoD and of relevant DLA and DoD policy.

The proposed solution offers little or no evidence of benefits to DLA and has few or no characteristics such as low barriers to transition, simplicity, ease of use, physical dimensions, etc. that make it somewhat likely to be adopted by DLA and industry. Response may contain some strengths, but identification of significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies are determined as having a critical impact on successfully fulfilling the Government’s requirement.

Factor 3 – Past Performance, Capabilities, and Related Experience

Acceptable (A): Response demonstrates generally satisfactory experience which is relevant to an area of research interest in the BAA. Response demonstrates satisfactory past performance in implementing or sustaining systems or processes which are similar to those being proposed. Response generally demonstrates satisfactory overall past performance as it relates to meeting technical, schedule, cost and/or other objectives/requirements. Reasonable probability of successfully accomplishing the DLA requirement based on experience and past performance.

Not Acceptable (NA): Response demonstrates generally unsatisfactory overall experience which is not relevant in managing and performing tasks pertinent to an area of research interest in the BAA, and unsatisfactory experience in implementing or sustaining systems or processes to those being proposed. Generally, demonstrates unsatisfactory overall past performance. Low or no probability of successfully accomplishing the DLA requirement based on past performance.

Neutral: The respondent has no relevant record of past performance. Respondent will not be rated favorably or unfavorably.

Factor 4: Cost Realism A cost realism analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d) Cost realism analysis. Realism will be based on an evaluation of the respondent’s cost proposal to determine whether the estimated cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the respondent’s technical proposal (inclusive of cost management techniques). In addition, funds availability will be a basis for selection.

B. The SUBNET BAA closing date remains the same.