HTC711-15-R-W004-0001.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 RFP Addendum to FAR 52.212-2(II.)(A.) and incorporate revisions to paragraph 3.1.1. of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Attachment 1). Attachment 1 has been replaced in its entirety w ith Attach 1, PWS (A01), dated 1 October 2015.

The POC for this amendment is Mr. Joe Pereyra, 618-220-7151.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 5

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 30-Sep-2015

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 HTC711-15-R-W004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-Sep-2015

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 is extended, X 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

01-Oct-2015

CODE

USTRANSCOM-AQ - HTC711

508 SCOTT DR

SCOTT AFB IL 62225-5357

HTC711 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HTC711-15-R-W004

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 FAR 52.212-2

Evaluation -- Commercial Items (Oct 2014)

52.212-2 is replaced in its entirety.

I. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This acquisition is a competitive best value source selection. The Government intends to award a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract using low priced technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures (FAR 15.101-2). Award will be made to the lowest priced responsible offeror whose proposal meets the requirements for technical capability, past performance, cyber security, use of U.S. shipyards and whose price is determined fair and reasonable. Technical Capability will be rated as acceptable or unacceptable at the Subfactor level. In order to be eligible for award, each of the two technical subfactors must be rated “Acceptable”. Past Performance, Cyber Security and Use of U.S. shipyards will be rated as acceptable or unacceptable at the Factor level.

II. EVALUATION PROCESS

A. After receipt of proposals, the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will evaluate proposals based on the submitted price, technical, past performance, cyber security, and the information provided on the use of domestic shipyards. First, the proposals will be ranked in price order from lowest to highest based on the total proposed price (TPP). Next, each offeror’s Technical Capability Factor 2 will be evaluated at the subfactor level and each subfactor will receive a rating of either Acceptable or Unacceptable. In order to be rated as Acceptable, the offeror’s proposal must meet the Government's minimum requirements. Proposals deemed Unacceptable are those that fail to meet the Government's minimum requirement. Next, Past Performance will be evaluated for the lowest ranked TPP offeror with an Acceptable Technical Capability rating. Past Performance will be evaluated and rated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. Next, Cyber Security will be evaluated for the lowest ranked TPP offeror with an Acceptable Technical Capability and Past Performance rating. Cyber Security will be evaluated and rated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. Next, the Government will evaluate the lowest ranked TPP offeror with Acceptable Technical Capability, Past Performance and Cyber Security ratings for use of U.S. shipyards for certain overhaul, repair, and maintenance work and assign a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. Finally, the lowest TPP proposal with Acceptable ratings for Technical Capability, Past Performance, Cyber Security and U.S. shipyard use will be evaluated to determine whether the prices offered are fair and reasonable. Prices will be determined fair and reasonable using one or more techniques set forth in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). If the lowest ranked TPP offeror’s prices are determined to be fair and reasonable,that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers. If the Government is unable to determine the lowest ranked TPP offeror’s prices to be fair and reasonable or if an unacceptable rating is received in any of the Technical Capability subfactors, the Past Performance factor, the Cyber Security factor or use of U.S. Shipyards factor, the next lowest ranked TPP offer will be evaluated. This process will continue (in order of ascending price) until an offeror is judged to have an acceptable technical, past performance, cyber security, and use of U.S. shipyards proposal, or until all offerors have been evaluated. At this point, the Source Selection Authority will determine whether it is in the Government's best interest to award without discussions or enter into discussions.

B. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

FACTOR 1: Price FACTOR 2: Technical Capability Subfactor A: Equipment Subfactor B: Management of Operations FACTOR 3: Past Performance FACTOR 4: Cyber Security FACTOR 5: Evaluation of Use of U. S. Shipyards

III. EVALUATION CRITERIA

A. FACTOR 1 – PRICE

The Government will be conducting price analysis by one or more of the techniques set forth in FAR Part 15.404-1 to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Unreasonably high prices may result in elimination of an offeror from further consideration. The Government will evaluate the monthly rates, the Proposed Price for the base period and each option period to include the six-month Extension of Services period, excluding reimbursables in making a fair and reasonable determination.

Pricing for the 6-month Extension of Services period will be based on half (1/2) the Proposed Price of the final option period. Offerors shall not submit a price for the optional 6-month Extension of Services since the pricing spreadsheet will automatically populate the total. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

B. FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical capability to determine the degree to which the information provided by the offeror in its proposal demonstrates the offeror’s ability to provide the equipment and resources needed to successfully accomplish the objectives of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). An overall factor-level rating will not be assigned.

The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals at the sub-factor level on an acceptable/unacceptable basis as defined below.

RATING DEFINITION

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

1. Sub-factor A: Equipment. The offeror must propose sufficient equipment which will result in an offerors successful completion of the requirement. The Offeror must describe the quantity and type (to include size and configuration); of equipment that offeror proposes for use under this solicitation. Descriptions should be sufficient to allow the Government to determine compliance with service requirements listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Contractor and its equipment offered must currently possess or be eligible for United States Coast Guard (USCG) approval to operate in US coastal and inland waterways. The contractor shall provide a copy of the USCG certificate with their proposal. If equipment is under lease, the contractor shall provide lease agreement or signed letter of intent to lease with their proposal.

2. Sub-factor B: Management of Operations. The offeror must demonstrate managerial and supervisory ability of key personnel, operational controls, lines of authority for coordination and interface with the Government, necessary staffing and how it will maintain or exceed customer expectations including identification and correction of problems. The offeror must describe how it intends to meet the performance objectives identified in the PWS, keep cargo free of contamination or degradation, and should also identify those areas the contractor sees as critical to the customers for this contract. The offeror must state how it will monitor quality performance in those areas, and how it will maintain or exceed customer expectations, including identification and correction of problems. The proposed approach shall effectively demonstrate the offeror’s ability to comply with PWS paragraphs 1.13 – 1.4.1.2., 1.5.1. – 1.5.3., 4. – 5.5.2. Proposals that merely paraphrase the requirements of the Government’s PWS, or use such phrases as “will comply” or “standard techniques will be employed” will be considered unacceptable and will not be considered further.

C. FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

First, the Government will evaluate the recency of past performance information (must be within the last 3 years).

Past performance information submitted which exceeds the 3 year limit will not be considered. Next, the Government will evaluate the relevancy of past performance information. The relevancy of each contract reference will be considered in the overall rating for the offeror.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved 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

Finally, the Government will assign an overall past performance rating of acceptable or unacceptable to each offeror based on the past performance information submitted by the offeror and any other past performance information obtained by the Government through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), other databases, interview with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials or any other source available to the Government.

Past Performance Rating

Rating

Description

Acceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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.”

D. FACTOR 4 – CYBER SECURITY

Factor 2 Technical Capability Ratings/Definitions for Acceptable and Unacceptable will be used to evaluate this factor. To be rated Acceptable, the offeror shall identify any specific NIST Special Publication 800-53, Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations, standard identified in the solicitation, that they do not intend to implement. Specifically, the offeror shall explain how the required security control identified in the solicitation is not applicable, or how an alternative control or protective measure is effective in protecting DOD information from unauthorized disclosure. If the offeror can meet or meets all required NIST Special Publication 800-53, Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations, a confirmation statement stating so shall be provided (i.e. Company X hereby certifies compliance with all NIST Special Publication 800-53, Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organization, requirements).

For any offeror-identified NIST standards that will not be implemented, the offeror shall explain how the required security control identified in the solicitation is not applicable, or how an alternative control or protective measure shall be used to achieve equivalent protections. The offeror's explanation should provide assurance that implementation of their information systems security without a specific control (or controls), or use of an equivalent control will be effective in protecting DoD information from unauthorized disclosure.

E. FACTOR 5 – EVALUATION of USE OF U.S. SHIPYARDS

Evaluation of Use of U.S. Shipyards (IAW DFARS 252.247-7026 - Evaluation Preference for Use of Domestic Shipyards — Applicable to Acquisition of Carriage by Vessel for DoD Cargo in the Coastwise or Noncontiguous Trade (Nov 2008)). The Government will evaluate the offeror’s use of U.S. shipyards for certain overhaul, repair and maintenance work.

The offeror shall provide the following information with its offer, addressing all covered vessels for which overhaul, repair and maintenance work has been performed during the period covering the current calendar year, up to the date of proposal submission and the preceding four (4) calendar years:

(i) Name of Vessel.

(ii) Description and cost of qualifying shipyard work performed in the U.S. shipyards.

(iii) Description and cost of qualifying work performed in foreign shipyards

a. Such work was performed as emergency repairs in foreign shipyards due to accident, emergency, Act of God, or an infirmity to the vessel, and safety considerations warranted taking the vessel to a foreign shipyard; or

b. Such work was paid for or reimbursed by the U.S. Government

(iv) Names of shipyards that performed the work.

(v) Inclusive dates of work performed.

(vi) Percentage on use of U.S Shipyards using below calculation.

A rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable will be assigned based on the following formula.

[Repair Money Spent in US]/[Total Repair Money Spent] = Evaluation of Use of U.S. Shipyards

Offeror with calculation amounting to 60% or higher will receive a rating of Acceptable. Offeror with calculation less than 60% will receive a rating of Unacceptable.

- All calculations are based on total number of ships owned, operated or controlled by carrier whether or not they are used on this contract.

- The calculation will be rounded to the nearest tenth (i.e., 38.7%).

(End of Summary of Changes)