HDQMWR19R0037_AMEND0001_FE.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 electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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 NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

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

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

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 APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER 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

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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

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

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 (Number, 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)

Previous edition unusable

NONAPPROPRIATED FUNDS

The solicitation is amended as follows;

A. The proposal deadline is extended to August 9, 2019.

B. See continuation page for administrative changes to the solicitation and answers to submitted questions.

COMMANDER, NAVY INSTALLATION COMMAND

ACQUISITION BRANCH, N945

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE, BLDG 457

MILLINGTON, TN 38055-6500

SARAH PARKER / SARAH.K.PARKER1@NAVY.MIL

PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS

HDQMWR-19-R-0037

07/24/2019

06/28/2019 sarah.k.parker1 Typewritten Text sarah.k.parker1 Typewritten Text Sarah K. Parker sarah.k.parker1 Typewritten Text 07/24/2019 sarah.k.parker1 Typewritten Text sarah.k.parker1 Typewritten Text

HDQMWR-19-R-0037

A. The following changes are made to solicitation HDQMWR-19-R-0037:

1. Section H.1 Appointment of Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is removed and replaced as G.3 Appointment of Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).

2. Clause 39. Changes – Fixed Price is removed due to being a duplicate clause

3. Supplemental Clause is renamed as follows, 3. Option to Extend the Term of the Contract

4. Part III, Section J-Attachments page numbers are updated to Pages 66-68.

5. Paragraph L.1 Preparation of Offers paragraph is updated to read: “Proposals and questions shall be submitted consistent with the instructions below, and shall be submitted via email with subject line: “HDQMWR-19-R-0037” to the following address:”

6. Page 65 M.3 Price, paragraph b is hereby removed.

7. Page 64 M.2.2 Non Price Factors 1 and 2 is replaced with:

M.2.2 NON-PRICE FACTORS 1 AND 2 EVALUATION CRITERIA: The following will be used to evaluate the non-price factors.

FACTOR 1: Technical will be rated on the following adjectival ratings.

Excellent (E) Good (G) Satisfactory (S) Poor (P) Unacceptable (U)

E (Excellent) - Proposal/factor demonstrates thorough and detailed understanding of requirements. Technical considerations and capabilities significantly exceed performance and capability standards. Proposal/factor offers one or more significant strengths which are not offset by weaknesses. The proposal/factor represents a high probability of success with no apparent risk in meeting the NAFI’s requirements. An excellent rating includes numerous advantageous characteristics of substance which can be expected to result in a superior completed product, and essentially no disadvantages. In addition, an excellent rating may include an aesthetically pleasing and innovative proposed design solution.

G (Good) - Proposal/factor demonstrates clear understanding of requirements. Technical considerations and capabilities exceed performance and capability standards and include some advantageous characteristics of substance and few relatively minor disadvantages.

Proposal/factor offers one or more strengths. Strengths must outweigh any weaknesses.

The proposal/factor represents a strong probability of success with overall low degree of risk in meeting the NAFI’s requirements.

S (Satisfactory) – Proposal/factor demonstrates acceptable understanding of requirements. Technical considerations and capabilities meet performance and capability standards. Proposal/factor offers no strengths, or, if there are strengths, these strengths are offset by weaknesses. The proposal/factor represents a reasonable probability of success with overall moderate degree of risk in meeting the NAFI’s requirements.

P (Poor) - Proposal/factor demonstrates a limited understanding of requirements.

Technical considerations and capabilities are questionable as to whether or not they meet performance and capability standards necessary for acceptable contract performance.

Proposal/factor contains weaknesses and offers no strengths, or, if there are strengths, these strengths are outweighed by weaknesses. The proposal/factor represents a low probability of success with overall high degree of risk in meeting the NAFI’s requirements. Proposal/factor might be made satisfactory with additional information and without major revisions of the proposal.

U (Unacceptable) - Proposal/factor demonstrates a lack of understanding of the requirements. Technical considerations and capabilities do not meet performance and capability standards necessary for acceptable contract performance. Proposal/factor contains major errors, omissions, significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies. The degree of risk is so high that there is no reasonable likelihood of success, regardless of price.

Deficiencies are so major or extensive that a major revision or complete rewrite of the proposal would be necessary.

The mere existence of a single strength does not necessarily merit an Excellent rating;

though an Excellent rating may be warranted should that strength provide considerable benefit to NAFI. Conversely, a number of strengths may not merit an Excellent rating if the collective benefit is relatively minor.

FACTOR 2: Past Performance will be evaluated based on the following adjectival ratings.

ADJECTIVAL DEFINITION

Excellent

Offeror’s performance was very current and very relevant to the requirements requested. Relevant defined as performing the same services. Performance was accomplished with no problems for which any required corrective actions taken were highly effective

Good

Offeror’s performance was current and relevant to the requirements requested. Relevant defined as performing similar services.

Performance was accomplished with no or some minor problems for which any required corrective actions taken were effective

Satisfactory

Offeror’s performance met contractual requirements. Performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which any required corrective actions taken were satisfactory

Unknown/Neutral

No relevant past performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful past performance risk prediction. A search was unable to identify any relevant past performance information for the contractor or their key personnel. This is neither a positive or negative assessment

Marginal

Offeror’s performance did not meet all of the contractual requirements.

Performance was accomplished with serious problems for which any required corrective actions were marginally effective or not fully implemented

Unsatisfactory

Offeror’s performance did not meet most of the contractual requirements. Performance was accomplished with serious problems for which any required corrective actions were ineffective or non-existent

B. Questions and Answers:

1) In Part 1, Section B (Supplies and Price (Page2)) it is stated that the “material and prices will be fixed price.” Due to required support and maintenance fees per deployed unit and encode and delivery charges on a per-movie basis, any price would be based upon usage.

Is it still considered “fixed price” if it is charges on a per-unit deployed (for hardware) and a per-movie delivered (for content services)?

NAVY EXPECTS PRICES FOR HARDWARE AS DETAILED IN THE CLINS

TO BE FIXED. IF THE CONTRACTOR IS ALSO ACTING AS THE

LAB/DUPLICATION PROVIDER NAVY EXPECTS THE PRICE TO ALSO BE

FIXED ALTHOUGH MAY BE TIERED BASED ON SUCH FACTORS AS THE

USE OF MULTIPLE FORMATS, RUNNING TIME AND NUMBER OF

LOCATIONS/RUNS.

2) In section 3.1.1 (second bullet point): It is assumed that if we are a studio-approved lab that we would act as a lab providing all these defined duties. Please confirm.

CONFIRMED

3) In section 4.1: What types of “warranties” are required and are there any liabilities associated to these warranties? In what form is the warranty represented?

SECTION 5. WARRANTY REQUIREMENTS PROVIDES THE DETAILS AS

FOLLOWS: A MINIMUM OF THREE-YEAR WARRANTY WITH THREE

YEARS ON PARTS AND ONE YEAR ON LABOR IS HIGHLY

RECOMMENDED FOR ALL HARDWARE DEVICES PROCURED ON ANY

CONTRACT AWARDED UNDER THIS SOLICITATION.

4) In section 4.2.7: Is it possible to have the SSPS-MS unit located in the lab services and distribution facility of the Contractor for distribution via USB Pen or eDelivery to units as required?

LOCATING THE SSPS-MS IN THE LAB AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY OF

THE CONTRACTOR IS FINE. DISTRIBUTION FORMAT WILL BE

DETERMINED VIA CONTRACT AWARD.

5) In section 4.2.7.2: Adding custom content would require our system to encode and distribute the custom content along with the studio content. It would then require the end user to create a playlist to play the various content pieces in the order they determine.

Would this be sufficient?

YES

6) In section 4.2.7.4: How much content is stored on the playback systems (STBs)? It seems that the desire is that there is approximately 1000 movies required to be stored on the final playback system. Can you confirm?

THIS SECTION REFERS TO THE DUPLICATION CAPABILITIES AND

SHOULD BE READ IN COMBINATION WITH 4.2.7.5 – NAVY SEEKS

DUPLICATION CAPABLE OF PROVIDING UP TO 1000 COPIES OF THE

MONTHLY SHIPMENT OF 16 TITLES WITHIN A 4 DAY

PERIOD. THEREFORE THE REFERENCE TO “1,000” IN 4.2.7.4 IS TO THE

NUMBER OF POTENTIAL SSPS PLAYERS, NOT THE NUMBER OF MOVIES

UNDER CONTRACT. IN 4.2.9 IT IS NOTED THAT THE SSSPS “INCLUDE

LOCAL STORAGE FOR A MINIMUM OF 8 PIECES OF ENCRYPTED

CONTENT WITH CONTENT FILE SIZE TO BE DETERMINED USING

AVERAGE CONTENT LENGTH OF 2 HOURS AND 10 MINUTES WHEN

ENCODED AT INDUSTRY STANDARD HD QUALITY AND

RESOLUTIONS.” AND THE SSPS PLAYER HAVE “ABILITY TO LOAD AND

TEMPORARILY STORE, FROM ONE OR MULTIPLE MEDIA TRANSFER

DEVICES OR INTERNET A MINIMUM OF 8 PIECES OF CONTENT.”

7) In section 4.2.10: It is unknown what is meant by a “media transfer device”. Can this be explained in more detail?

MEDIA TRANSFER DEVICE IS THE FORMAT USED TO SEND TO

PROGRAM SITES AND PLAYBACK ON THE SSPS PLAYBACK UNIT.

EXAMPLES MAY INCLUDE USB DRIVE, SD CARD, INTERNET DELIVERY

OR OTHER METHODS RECOMMENDED BY THE CONTRACTOR.

8) While it isn’t covered in this document, we would need to understand the support & maintenance requirements for the proposed work. Who would be the Tier 1 support with the end user? Etc. It would be good to completely understand the support expectations as part of this opportunity.

NAVY MOTION PICTURE SERVICE (NMPS) OR NAVSEA WOULD BE THE

PRIMARY CONTACT WITH VENDOR ON PLAYER SUPPORT FOR NMPS

PROGRAM SITES – FIELD SITES WOULD NOT BE IN DIRECT CONTACT

WITH THE VENDOR. ARMY AIRFORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE (AAFES)

WOULD NEED TO DETERMINE HOW PLAYER SUPPORT WOULD BE

HANDLED FOR THE AAFES PROGRAM SITES.

9) Who is the incumbent?

THE INCUMBENT IS ARMED FORCES SERVICES CORPORATION,

CONTRACT NUMBER HDQMWR-15-C-0020.

10) Can countries outside the United States submit a proposal?

THIS PRODUCT MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE

BUY AMERICAN ACT.

sarah.k.parker1 Typewritten Text //End of Amendment 00001// sarah.k.parker1 Typewritten Text