RFP_Amendment_1.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2—EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

A. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

1. This competitive, best value source selection will be conducted IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 for Source Selection using the lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection process. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements. The resulting contract from this solicitation will be a firm-fixed price (FFP) contract. The LPTA evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

2. The Government intends to initially rank the proposals by total overall price (by adding the total price for all firm-fixed price CLINs as defined in the Addendum to 52.212-1, including transition/phase-in, basic period, option years, and extension period) and only evaluate the five lowest priced proposals. The Government will then evaluate those five proposals as provided in the RFP, Factor 1 (Technical), Factor 2 (Past Performance), and Factor 3 (Price). Any proposals outside this initial evaluation pool will not be evaluated, unless necessary to obtain the desired effective competition of three Offerors rated as “acceptable” in all technical sub-factors and the past performance factor. In the event that at least three of the initial five offers are not rated “acceptable,” the evaluation pool will be increased by evaluating the next lowest priced proposal. This process will continue until there are three “acceptable” proposals or until all Offerors’ proposals have been evaluated, whichever is reached first.

3. The past performance rating will utilize questionnaires (RFP Attachment 2) on recent and relevant performance information based on past and present efforts provided by the Offeror’s proposal as well as data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources.

4. The Government contemplates award of one contract resulting from this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract, depending on the quality of proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds. Evaluation will be conducted as outlined in “EVALUATION FACTORS.”

B. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

By submission of its proposal in accordance with instructions provided in the FAR Clause 52.212-1 Addendum, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. All technically acceptable proposals shall be treated equally except for the respective prices. Failure to meet a requirement will result in a proposal being determined technically unacceptable.

C. FINAL PROPOSAL REVISION (FPR):

Once discussions have been concluded (if conducted) with Offerors determined to be in the competitive range, the CO will request that those Offerors provide a FPR. Each Offeror is advised that any changes to the proposal in the FPR must be fully addressed/explained and reflected in the proposed cost/price. Failure to comply with this requirement can adversely influence the evaluation of the proposal. The CO will establish a common due date and time for submission of the FPR.

D. EVALUATION FACTORS:

Proposals will be evaluated using three (3) evaluation factors: (1) Technical, (2) Past Performance, and (3) Price. All technical capability sub-factors within the technical capability factor will receive either an acceptable or unacceptable technical capability rating. An unacceptable sub-factor assessment will render the entire proposal unawardable. The proposals will be evaluated against the following four technical capability sub-factors: Management Approach, Staffing Plan, Quality Control, and Experience.

E. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY RATINGS:

Offerors’ proposals shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required. The focus of the technical rating is on the Offeror’s ability to meet the minimum requirements of the PWS. The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an Offeror’s proposal. This factor will be evaluated “acceptable/unacceptable” at the sub-factor level. A finding of “unacceptable” in any sub-factor will render the proposal technically unacceptable IAW Table A-1 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 1 July 2011.

To be eligible for award, an “acceptable” rating for all technical sub-factors is required. Some technical sub-factors contain aspects. Each aspect will be assigned a rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” based on whether the proposal meets the basic PWS requirements and standards, and satisfactorily addresses the evaluation criteria identified within the aspect. Any aspect rating of “unacceptable” will result in a sub-factor rating of “unacceptable.” In assessing the acceptability of each sub-factor, any weakness or deficiency will be noted IAW the definitions located in FAR Part 15.001 and Chapter 5 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures. Proposals that receive deficiencies or weaknesses will receive an “unacceptable” rating. Proposals that exceed the evaluation criteria will not receive higher ratings. The Government may incorporate into this contract, by reference or full text, portions of the successful Offeror’s proposal submitted in response to this solicitation as revised and supplemented through the final proposal revision.

VOLUME II – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY – FACTOR 1 (Maximum 25 pages for Sub-factors 1 thru 4) Tab 1. Table of Contents Tab 2: Sub-factor 1 – Management Approach

The management approach shall describe the organizational and management approach intended for the performance of the contract. The proposal shall not merely offer to perform the work in accordance with the solicitation requirements, but shall outline the Offeror’s actual approach. The management approach is acceptable when it includes organizational set-ups and management tools and systems to meet the Government’s requirements identified in the PWS. A rating of unacceptable in one or more of the technical sub-factors will constitute an overall rating of unacceptable for the technical evaluation. The management approach shall include as a minimum a detailed description of the Offeror’s approach in providing services for:

a. Target systems retrieval IAW paragraph 1.2 of the PWS.

b. Launch corridor clearance IAW paragraph 1.3 of the PWS.

c. Watercraft vessel operating systems IAW paragraph 1.5 of the PWS.

Sub-factor 2 – Staffing Plan

The staffing plan is acceptable when it clearly demonstrates sufficient, qualified personnel with the required certifications are available to meet the requirements in the PWS. Logical and concise methodology must be presented to ensure qualified personnel with the required certifications are available to meet the requirement in the PWS throughout the life of the contract. A rating of unacceptable in one or more of the technical sub-factors will constitute an overall rating of unacceptable for the technical evaluation. The plan shall include as a minimum proof of qualification and certification requirements in accordance with paragraphs 1.12.2 and 1.2.5 as follows:

a. Current copies of captain’s certification for 200-ton vessels.

b. Current copies of the chief engineer’s certification for 6,400 hp engines.

c. Current copies of marine credentials for Transportation Worker Identification (TWIC) and US Coast Guard documentation for ordinary seaman.

d. Current copies of documentation required for commercial divers as required by CFR Title 29, part 1910, subpart T, Commercial Diving Operations IAW PWS paragraph 1.2.5.

Tab 4. Sub-factor 3 – Quality Control

The quality control plan is acceptable when the Offeror has provided an effective and complete approach that adequately addresses requirements of the PWS IAW paragraph 2.1 to ensure services provided meet the performance objectives and thresholds identified in the services summary (paragraph 2.0 of the PWS). A rating of unacceptable in one or more of the technical sub-factors will constitute an overall rating of unacceptable for the technical evaluation. The quality control plan will include as a minimum:

a. An effective and complete quality control plan IAW paragraph 2.1 of the PWS that addresses each of the requirements in 2.0, Services Summary.

b. Identify and address the role and authority of the primary quality control personnel.

c. Methods to be used for identifying and preventing defects before the performance becomes unacceptable.

d. Corrective actions or procedures that will be used to identify, prevent, or ensure non-recurrence of defective services.

Tab 5. Sub-factor 4 – Experience

The experience sub-factor is technically acceptable when the Offeror provides an acceptable description of recent watercraft experience in maritime operations, search and recovery, boundary clearance operations, and vessel maintenance. Experience must include operations performed in a marine environment facing challenging open ocean dynamics. Experience can be demonstrated either as a prime contractor or team effort, and either through a single prior or current contract or by a combination of prior and/or current contracts. Experience information consists of activities performed within the previous 3 years from the issue date of this solicitation. The experience will include as a minimum:

a. Documentation of previous work that demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of tasks required to perform target systems retrieval IAW PWS para 1.2.

b. Documentation of previous work that demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of tasks required to perform launch corridor clearance IAW PWS para 1.3.

c. Documentation of pervious work that demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of tasks required to perform maintenance for all watercraft vessel operating systems IAW PWS para 1.5.

Tab 6. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

VOLUME III – PRICE – FACTOR 2

Tab 1: SF 1449 and All Amendments

F. PRICING EVALUATION PROCESS:

1. The Government will evaluate the price/cost information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal, as required by the FAR Clause 52.212-1 Addendum, to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable using one or more of the proposal analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1. In addition to the price analysis as described in FAR 15.404-1(b), price proposals will be analyzed to identify any potential unbalanced pricing (See FAR 15.404-1(g)). Unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal. Comparison of proposed prices in response to the solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

2. There is a great expectation of competition for this requirement; thus, offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up-front. The Offeror’s price proposal shall represent the Offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. In instances where an Offeror receives acceptable technical and past performance ratings, yet proposed prices appear exceptionally low, Offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s). An exceptionally low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal.

3. Complete blocks 12, 17a, and 30a, b, and c of the SF 1449. In doing so, the Offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the solicitation, with attachments. The solicitation constitutes the model contract.

4. Offerors shall enter a fully burdened unit price, rounded up to 2 decimals only, for each firm-fixed price (FFP) CLIN to include all option periods, in the Pricing Schedule of the SF1449 continuation pages. The total extended amounts for each FFP CLIN must equal the fully burdened unit price multiplied by the number of days/months. Price proposals will be assessed based on the total evaluated price (TEP). TEP will be calculated as the total of all FFP fully burdened extended prices for CLINs 0001, 0002, 0005 for the base year and CLINs X001 and X004 for all option years. Cost reimbursable CLINs 0003, 0004, 0006, X002, X003, and X005 for parts, shipyard haul out, and SFS boat parts will not be included in the TEP calculation. TEP includes the total sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices for the basic period, all option year periods (4 years), and a 6-month extension IAW clause 52.217-8. This clause, if exercised, allows for up to an additional 6 months of continued contract performance. Offerors shall not include pricing in their proposal for this clause as it will be based on the rates of the period of performance immediately preceding the extension. Evaluation of the option periods shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

NOTE: The Security Forces Squadron CLINs 0005 and 0006 for the base year and CLINs X004 and X005 for all four (4) option years are listed as optional proposal CLINs. Offerors are to propose prices for these CLINs but the Government reserves the right to award based on the availability of funds.

VOLUME IV – PAST PERFORMANCE – FACTOR 3

Tab 1: Table of Contents

Tabs 2-6: Past Performance References

G. PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS:

1. The Government will evaluate this factor to assess the Offerors’ recent and relevant present and past performance to determine whether there is a reasonable expectation that the Offeror can successfully perform as proposed. For purposes of this evaluation, the “Offeror” includes any joint ventures, subcontractors and/or teaming partners proposed as part of the prime contractor’s team under this effort. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet user’s needs, including quality, cost, and schedule. The government will evaluate all aspects of the Past Performance Information (PPI) as part of its assessment. Past performance will be assessed a final rating of "acceptable" or "unacceptable" at the factor level IAW Table A-2 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 1 July 2011.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

2. Recency. A Recency determination will be made for each PPI reference provided. Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of 12 months) during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance (minimum of 12 months) as of three (3) years from the date of this solicitation, will be considered recent. If a PPI reference is determined recent, the Government may evaluate the Offerors’ performance record during the entire contract period.

3. Relevancy. Relevancy includes performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in the solicitation. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts most closely resemble the scope, magnitude, and complexity of this solicitation. The Government will validate the relevancy information contained in the contractor-provided PPI reference. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. In order to be considered Relevant, each PPI reference must meet the criteria as shown below in the table.

Relevant

Past performance effort involving control of watercraft in maritime operations, search and recovery, boundary clearance operations, and vessel maintenance. Past performance must include operations performed in a marine environment facing challenging open ocean dynamics

4. Performance Quality Assessment. For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the Government will consider the performance quality of the work performed. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the Offeror’s past performance met basic contract PWS and technical requirements, the assessment will consider things such as reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction, and generally, the contractor’s business-like concern for the interest of the customer. The performance quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. The Offeror will be afforded the opportunity to respond to any adverse information which has not been previously addressed. For adverse information identified, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

5. Past Performance References. Provide the past performance questionnaire, Attachment 2 to the RFP, to your references and ensure they complete the assessment and forward no later than 10 calendars days prior to the date set for the receipt of proposals to: 325th Contracting Squadron, Attn: Ms. Bobbie Davis/Mr. Donald Sumner/ TSgt Nicholas Bachman, 501 Airey Ave, Suite 5, Tyndall AFB FL 32403-5526, or email to bobbie.davis@us.af.mil, donald.sumner@us.af.mil, and nicholas.bachman@us.af.mil. Teaming partners should also ensure past performance information is provided.

(End of Addendum) (End of Summary of Changes)