H92240-19-R-0011_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

Provides revised due date for quotes, responses to questions recieved and revises att 02, 03 and 04. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Jul-2019

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 H9224019R0011

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Jun-2019

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 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

08-Jul-2019

CODE

NAVAL SPECIAL WARFARE COMMAND - N01C

ATTN: JOHN KNIZNER

2000 TRIDENT WAY

SAN DIEGO CA 92155-5583

H92240 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

H9224019R0011

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 11-Jul-2019 12:00 PM to 17-Jul-2019 12:00 PM.

The following have been added by full text:

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS

# Document Reference

Description OFFEOR Question/Comment GOVERNMENT Answer

Example

N/A General Who is the incumbent if any and what is the contract number?

The incumbent is Orion Solutions, LLC. on contract H92240‐13‐D‐0014

2 Solicitation, Section 1

General Submission Instructions

What POC and email address should be used when submitting the proposal?

POC for submission of quote is john.knizner@socom.mil

3 Att 2, TO1

PWS,

Section 9.0 and Att 4, TEP worksheet

Clarification request

Att 2, Section 9.0 indicates a Period of Performance of 24 months – one 12 month base plus one 12 month option. The TEP worksheet tab for TO 1 pricing (which is not to be altered) appears to incorporate FTEs based on just the Base Period. Please clarify the PoP for TO 1 provide modified documents, as applicable.

Task Order one (1) Period of Performance will be corrected to reflect a twelve month period of performance only.

4 Att 3, TO2

PWS,

Section 9.0 and Att 4, TEP worksheet

Clarification request

Att 3, Section 9.0 indicates a Period of Performance of 24 months – one 12 month base plus one 12 month option. The TEP worksheet tab for TO 2 pricing (which is not to be altered) appears to incorporate FTEs based on just the Base Period. Please clarify the PoP for TO 2 and provide modified documents, as applicable.

Task Order two Period of Performance will be corrected to reflect a twelve month period of performance only.

5 Att. 4, TEP worksheet, Tab 1, Total Evaluated Price

Clarification request

On the TEP worksheet, Total Evaluated Price, Tab 1, the formula on this worksheet only calculates IDIQ pricing and TO1 pricing, it leaves out TO2 pricing.

According to the solicitation P.5, section 4.

VOLUME 3 – FACTOR 3 – Price., tab 1 should be calculating IDIQ, TO1 and TO2.

Please advise how we should address this calculation.

Total Evaluated Price is calculated by summing the values of the IDIQ Elin pricing, pricing of task order one and task order two. Correction to the Total Evaluated Price sheet will be posted.

6 Att. 4, TEP worksheet, Tab 2, IDIQ ELIN pricing

Clarification request

On tab 2, the IDIQ ELIN pricing tab appears to require rates for every position and every location, even position/locations that do not exist in either task order.

The pricing by location and labor category under Att 4, IDIQ ELIN pricing shall serve as ceiling pricing for the life of the awarded contract.

In addition, some positions are listed on the IDIQ ELIN tab that are no longer listed in the Task Orders at all. (i.e. Bus and Truck Mechanic, Marine Systems Electrician) Should we provide pricing only for those locations and positions outlined in the task orders, or for every position/location listed?

Offerors are shall price all labor categories and locations.

Tasking associated with task order one and task order two do not require all of the labor categories listed under the IDIQ ELIN pricing sheet. Only the labor required to perform tasking has been listed under the task order one and two pricing sheets.

7 Att. 4, TEP worksheet, Tab 1, Total Evaluated Price

Clarification request

On tab 1, Total Evaluated Price, by adding IDIQ(Tab 2) pricing to TO1(Tab3) and TO2(Tab4) pricing, every base year position cost is added twice in the final pricing (tab 1). This appears to be skewing our final pricing for this solicitation. Is this accurate?

The total evaluated price for the IDIQ ELIN Pricing tab is the sum of all the labor (1,880 X labor category rate), plus material and travel (pre‐ fil) values of $780,000 and $130,000 respectively). The priced value of task order one and two are added in to arrive at a total evaluated price. The evaluation does not double count, as the IDIQ ELIN Pricing is not reflective of tasking, rather a comparison of fully burdened labor rates. The addition of task order one and two to the total evaluated price provide for analysis of pricing at the task level.

In either case, evaluation of price utilizing this methodology is uniform and does not provide any advantage to one offeror over another.

8 Clarification Question

Would NSWC extend the proposal deadline from 11Jul19 to 25Jul19? This will allow time for addressing the questions below and any related follow‐up questions.

The due date for quotes will be extended via amendment to 17 July 2019 at 1200PM, Pacific Time.

9 Clarification Question

Who is the incumbent contractor (name and website) and what is both the contract number and corresponding solicitation number for the incumbent contract?

The incumbent is Orion Solutions, LLC, under contract H92240‐13‐D‐ 0014. Applicable solicitation number was H92240‐13‐R‐0008

10 RFQ-

Section 3.2 Subfactor 2

Clarification Question

a) What is the NSWC justification for the listed “Minimum acceptability criteria”?

b) How many potential bidders has NSWC determined meet the listed criteria?

c) Does NSWC know for certain that more than one potential bidder meets the listed criteria?

a) Minimum acceptability criteria represents the minimum level of experience determined necessary to perform the stated requirements successfully. Firms with experience below the minimum acceptable level introduce an unacceptable level of performance risk for the Government;

b) Market Research indicated multiple small business firms are capable and interested in this procurement action;

c) Market research indicated multiple small business firms as potentially capable. Market research included a review of prior acquisition history, contact with knowledgeable Government technical representatives, Sources Sought to industry to identify interested and capable sources in the commercial marketplace, review of capability statements from interested small business sources and review of their records in SAM, SBA DSBS and EDA.

11 Clarification Question

Per separate advice from NSWC regarding a forthcoming longer‐term, multiple‐award contract, why is NSWC soliciting for this single award contract with requirements that limit bidding to an extremely small group of vendors (possibly a single vendor)?

Market Research has indicated multiple small business sources to be capable of performing both the short term and long term requirement. For the short term contract, multiple awards for a shortened period of time would not be in the best interest of the Government.

12 Clarification Question

Why is it more beneficial for NSWC to award this single award contract now and a subsequent multiple award contract later?

The Government is pursuing a shorter term contract in order to ensure continuity of services while a longer term contract is solicited and competed. A single award contract for the shorter term IDIQ is in the Governments’ best interest because the Government does not anticipate savings from multiple award competition to exceed the administrative costs of executing a multiple award approach. In order to accommodate multiple awards, the Government would anticipate needing to revise requirements in order to issue multiple awards.

Revision of requirements would most likely involve reducing the period of performance for specific tasking at various locations. Under taking such an approach would lead to potential schedule delays as different contract staff would be required to rotate to specific locations on a more frequent basis.

Finally, industry may not be interested in pursuing short term task orders and may not be able to maintain the personnel required to support tasking under the short term IDIQ where a multiple award approach is pursued.

13 Clarification Question

If a multiple award contract is solicited and awarded at a later date, how will that impact this single award contract?

The Government anticipates that tasking on issued orders under the shorter term IDIQ would complete around the same time the longer term IDIQ contract is awarded.

Under an IDIQ contract, once the minimum contract value is awarded, the Government is under no further obligation to issue additional orders.

14 Clarification Question

If a multiple award contract is solicited and awarded at a later date, will that preclude the issuance of additional task orders on this single award contract and potentially lead to the cancellation of or a choice not to exercise the option year for this single award contract?

See response to question 13.

15 RFQ Clarification Question

Please explain and resolve the discrepancy between the stated intent “...to award one

(1) indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) type contract…” (in Section 5. Basis of Award on p. 6 of 46 in “H92240‐19‐R‐ 0011.pdf”) and the requirement to staff specific categories and numbers of personnel, “...the following labor mix will be required to perform the requirements of this PWS...” (in Section 3.4 PERSONNEL AND QUALIFICATIONS on p. 2 of 6 of “Att_2_‐_Task_Order_1_‐ _Performance_Work_Statement.pdf”). The statements in the “H92240‐19‐R‐0011.pdf” file regarding the IDIQ indicate that task orders will be issued for specific types of equipment over time but the personnel requirements in the “Att_2_‐ _Task_Order_1_‐ _Performance_Work_Statement.pdf”” file indicate a staffing contract with a specific, full‐time level of effort at multiple locations.

As stated in the basis for award the Government anticipates issuing a single award IDIQ.

Att 2 and Att 3 represent specific tasking and the Government has included labor requirements for completing tasking described for task orders one and two.

The following have been modified:

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 – IDIQ Performance Work Statement (PWS) REVISED Attachment 2 – Task Order 0001 (TO1) PWS – DATED 08 JULY 2019 Attachment 2a – CESE/MHE/GSE Inventory List REVISED Attachment 3 – Task Order 0002 (TO2) PWS – DATED 08 JULY 2019 Attachment 3a – SSC Inventory List REVISED Attachment 4 – Total Evaluated Price (TEP) worksheet – DATED 08 JULY 2019 Attachment 5 – RFQ Question & Answer template Attachment 6 – DD254 Contract Security Classification Specification Attachment 7 – Wage Determination ‐ San Diego, CA Attachment 8 – Wage Determination ‐ Virginia Beach, VA Attachment 9 – Wage Determination – Stennis, MS Attachment 10 – Wage Determination – Pearl City, HI Attachment 11 – Wage Determination – Agana, Guam Attachment 12 – Wage Determination – Fort Chaffee, AR Attachment 13 – Wage Determination – Fallon, NV Attachment 14 – Wage Determination – Kodiak, AK Attachment 15 – Wage Determination – Keyport, WA

(End of Summary of Changes)