15R6262_Amendment_0001_21_Sep_15.pdf

N0002412NR94153

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

SEE ATTACHED PAGES

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

V 1 25

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-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 N00024-15-R-6262

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

04-Aug-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, 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 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

21-Sep-2015

CODE

NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND

STOP 2060 1333 ISAAC HULL AVE SE

WASHINGTON NAVY YARD DC 20376

N00024 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N00024-15-R-6262

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

The purposes of this amendment to solicitation N00024-15-R-6262 are to:

1. Under SECTION B – SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES, modify as follows:

a. CLIN 0204 extended description has been modifed to change FOB: Destination to FOB: Origin

b. SLIN 0503AM extended description has been modified to change “First Delivery TI 20 OMS Spares” to read “Fourth Delivery TI 20 OMS Spares”.

c. Under Small Business Participation & Small Business Subcontracting Incentive Clause:

(1) Restate Applicable Items to read “(Applicable to Items 0001 and (if options are exercised) 0002, 0101, 0201, 0203, 0204, 0301, 0303, 0401, 0403, 0501 and 0503);

(2) Under (d) SBSIF Earned: a new chart with percentages shifted down has been inserted and CLINs updated; under (g) Payment of Special Incentive: table summarizing the maximum SBSIF available to be earned is modified to incorporate CLINs.

2. Under SECTION I – CONTRACT CLAUSES, delete DFARs clause 252.225-7038.

3. Under SECTION J – List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments, Attachment 2 has been updated.

4. Under SECTION K – REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS, under clause 52.204-8 Annual Representation and Certifications under (20) remove “X” from

(vii) 52.227-15 Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software.

5. Under SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS, specifically under SECTION L-2 Additional Instructions and Conditions and Notices to Offerors, HQ L-2-0003 Facility Security Clearance clause paragraph (b) has been restated.

6. Under SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, under 2.0 Management Approach (Factor) change “2.5 Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Participation (sub-factor)” to read “2.6 Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Participation (sub-factor)”.

Accordingly, this amendment is modified as follows:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0204

The FOB has changed from Destination to Origin.

SUBCLIN 0503AM

The CLIN extended description has changed from for VA New Construction First Delivery TI20 OMS SparesOPTION YEAR - 5 (FY22) See Notes B and F to for VA New Construction Fourth Delivery TI20 OMS Spares OPTION YEAR - 5 (FY22) See Notes B and F.

The following have been modified:

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

HQ C-2-0026 FIRST ARTICLE (CONTRACTOR TESTING) (NAVSEA) (SEP 1990)

(a) For the purpose of this contract, the "First Article" is synonymous with the terms "preproduction model(s) and "preproduction equipment".

(b) The First Article shall conform in every respect to the requirements of this contract and shall be fully tested by the Contractor at its own expense to determine compliance with said requirements. The production equipment shall be manufactured with tools, material and methods which are the same as or representative of the tools, material and methods which were used to manufacture the First Article.

(c) Pursuant to paragraph (e) of the clause entitled "FIRST ARTICLE APPROVAL--CONTRACTOR TESTING" (FAR 52.209-3), the First Article shall not be delivered as part of the production quantity.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been deleted:

252.225-7038 Restriction on Acquisition of Air Circuit Breakers JUN 2005

SECTION K - REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (JAN 2014)

(a)(1) The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 334511.

(2) The small business size standard is 750 employees.

(3) The small business size standard for a concern which submits an offer in its own name, other than on a construction or service contract, but which proposes to furnish a product which it did not itself manufacture, is 500 employees.

(b)(1) If the provision at 52.204-7, System for Award Management, is included in this solicitation, paragraph (d) of this provision applies.

(2) If the provision at 52.204-7 is not included in this solicitation, and the offeror is currently registered in System for Award Management (SAM), and has completed the Representations and Certifications section of SAM electronically, the offeror may choose to use paragraph (d) of this provision instead of completing the corresponding individual representations and certifications in the solicitation. The offeror shall indicate which option applies by checking one of the following boxes:

( ) Paragraph (d) applies.

( ) Paragraph (d) does not apply and the offeror has completed the individual representations and certifications in the solicitation.

(c)(1) The following representations or certifications in SAM are applicable to this solicitation as indicated:

(i) 52.203-2, Certificate of Independent Price Determination. This provision applies to solicitations when a firm-fixed-price contract or fixed-price contract with economic price adjustment is contemplated, unless--

(A) The acquisition is to be made under the simplified acquisition procedures in Part 13;

(B) The solicitation is a request for technical proposals under two-step sealed bidding procedures; or

(C) The solicitation is for utility services for which rates are set by law or regulation.

(ii) 52.203-11, Certification and Disclosure Regarding Payments to Influence Certain Federal Transactions. This provision applies to solicitations expected to exceed $150,000.

(iii) 52.204-3, Taxpayer Identification. This provision applies to solicitations that do not include the provision at 52.204-7, System for Award Management.

(iv) 52.204-5, Women-Owned Business (Other Than Small Business).This provision applies to solicitations that--

(A) Are not set aside for small business concerns;

(B) Exceed the simplified acquisition threshold; and

(C) Are for contracts that will be performed in the United States or its outlying areas.

(v) 52.209-2, Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations--Representation. This provision applies to solicitations using funds appropriated in fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, or 2012.

(vi) 52.209-5, Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters. This provision applies to solicitations where the contract value is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

(vii) 52.214-14, Place of Performance – Sealed Bidding. This provision applies to invitations for bids except those in which the place of performance is specified by the Government.

(viii) 52.215-6, Place of Performance. This provision applies to solicitations unless the place of performance is specified by the Government.

(ix) 52.219-1, Small Business Program Representations (Basic & Alternate I). This provision applies to solicitations when the contract will be performed in the United States or its outlying areas.

(A) The basic provision applies when the solicitations are issued by other than DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard.

(B) The provision with its Alternate I applies to solicitations issued by DoD, NASA, or the Coast Guard.

(x) 52.219-2, Equal Low Bids. This provision applies to solicitations when contracting by sealed bidding and the contract will be performed in the United States or its outlying areas.

(xi) 52.222-22, Previous Contracts and Compliance Reports. This provision applies to solicitations that include the clause at 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity.

(xii) 52.222-25, Affirmative Action Compliance. This provision applies to solicitations, other than those for construction, when the solicitation includes the clause at 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity.

(xiii) 52.222-38, Compliance with Veterans' Employment Reporting Requirements. This provision applies to solicitations when it is anticipated the contract award will exceed the simplified acquisition threshold and the contract is not for acquisition of commercial items.

(xiv) 52.223-1, Biobased Product Certification. This provision applies to solicitations that require the delivery or specify the use of USDA-designated items; or include the clause at 52.223-2, Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Products Under Service and Construction Contracts.

(xv) 52.223-4, Recovered Material Certification. This provision applies to solicitations that are for, or specify the use of, EPA-designated items.

(xvi) 52.225-2, Buy American Act Certificate. This provision applies to solicitations containing the clause at 52.225- 1.

(xvii) 52.225-4, Buy American Act--Free Trade Agreements--Israeli Trade Act Certificate. (Basic, Alternates I, II, and III.) This provision applies to solicitations containing the clause at 52.225-3.

(A) If the acquisition value is less than $25,000, the basic provision applies.

(B) If the acquisition value is $25,000 or more but is less than $50,000, the provision with its Alternate I applies.

(C) If the acquisition value is $50,000 or more but is less than $79,507, the provision with its Alternate II applies.

(D) If the acquisition value is $79,507 or more but is less than $100,000, the provision with its Alternate III applies.

(xviii) 52.225-6, Trade Agreements Certificate. This provision applies to solicitations containing the clause at 52.225-5.

(xix) 52.225-20, Prohibition on Conducting Restricted Business Operations in Sudan--Certification. This provision applies to all solicitations.

(xx) 52.225-25, Prohibition on Contracting with Entities Engaging in Certain Activities or Transactions Relating to Iran--Representation and Certifications. This provision applies to all solicitations.

(xxi) 52.226-2, Historically Black College or University and Minority Institution Representation. This provision applies to--

(A) Solicitations for research, studies, supplies, or services of the type normally acquired from higher educational institutions; and

(B) For DoD, NASA, and Coast Guard acquisitions, solicitations that contain the clause at 52.219-23, Notice of Price Evaluation Adjustment for Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns.

(2) The following certifications are applicable as indicated by the Contracting Officer:

(Contracting Officer check as appropriate.)

(i) 52.219-22, Small Disadvantaged Business Status.

(A) Basic.

(B) Alternate I.

X (ii) 52.222-18, Certification Regarding Knowledge of Child Labor for Listed End Products.

(iii) 52.222-48, Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Act to Contracts for Maintenance, Calibration, or Repair of Certain Equipment Certification.

(iv) 52.222-52, Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Act to Contracts for Certain Services–Certification.

(v) 52.223-9, with its Alternate I, Estimate of Percentage of Recovered Material Content for EPA–Designated Products (Alternate I only).

(vi) 52.227-6, Royalty Information.

(A) Basic.

(B) Alternate I.

(vii) 52.227-15, Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software.

(d) The offeror has completed the annual representations and certifications electronically via the SAM website accessed through https://www.acquisition.gov. After reviewing the SAM database information, the offeror verifies by submission of the offer that the representations and certifications currently posted electronically that apply to this solicitation as indicated in paragraph (c) of this provision have been entered or updated within the last 12 months, are current, accurate, complete, and applicable to this solicitation (including the business size standard applicable to the NAICS code referenced for this solicitation), as of the date of this offer and are incorporated in this offer by reference (see FAR 4.1201); except for the changes identified below [offeror to insert changes, identifying change by clause number, title, date]. These amended representation(s) and/or certification(s) are also incorporated in this offer and are current, accurate, and complete as of the date of this offer.

FAR Clause Title Date Change

Any changes provided by the offeror are applicable to this solicitation only, and do not result in an update to the representations and certifications posted on SAM.

(End of provision)

SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION AND SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING INCENTIVE

(Applicable to Items 0001 and (if options are exercised) 0002, 0101, 0201, 0203, 0204, 0301, 0303, 0401, 0403, 0501 and 0503; payable under Items 0009 and (if options are exercised) 0109, 0209, 0309, 0409, and 0509)

(a) Objective:

PEO Submarine is committed to increasing small business participation in submarine system and subsystem development, production and support efforts consistent with cost/benefit considerations and attainment of acquisition objectives. Therefore, of the total dollars the Government plans to obligate each contract year under this contract, the Contractor is encouraged to award 15% or more to first-tier, small businesses. In addition, the Contractor may earn a Small Business Subcontracting Incentive Fee (SBSIF) under this contract for exceeding the Small Business Subcontracting Goals identified in the table below. No Small Business Subcontracting Incentive will be earned unless the contractor is making timely deliveries and is in compliance with the specifications for the software and hardware being acquired. The PCO will make the determination of whether the Contractor has met this prerequisite to be considered for the Incentive. In the event that the PCO determines that the Contractor’s performance is not satisfactory, the Contractor will not be eligible for the Special Incentive. The specifics for evaluation of the SBSIF are set forth in paragraphs that follow.

(b) Small Business Subcontracting Goals:

The following table identifies the percentages against which the Contractor’s performance for the purposes of the SBSIF will be measured for the evaluation periods.

Subcontract Category Goal* Small Business (SB)* 36.7% HUBZone Small Business (HUBZone) 3.0% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 3.0% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB)** 5.0% Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) 5.0% Historically Black Colleges & Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI)*** 3.5%

Base for measurement is total subcontract dollar obligations.

*This is a Team Submarine specified goal and exceeds DoD goal.

**Small Disadvantaged Business awards include 8(a) awards.

***Defense Components are not required by DoD to establish separate HBCU/MI subcontracting goals. This is the FY12 PEO SUB specified goal.

(c) Periods and SBSIF Available:

The SBSIF described in this clause is available for Items 0001and (if options are exercised) 0101, 0201, 0301, 0401, and 0501), if and to the extent the option is exercised. The evaluations will be accomplished for the CLINs identified in the table below based on the value of small business subcontracting during each period. The SBSIF pool contingency in each of these periods will be 1% of the total amount obligated against target cost on the engineering services Contract Line Item Numbers/Subline Item Numbers (CLINs/SLINs). The Final SBSIF pool in each of these periods will be 1% of the value determined by multiplying the actual labor hours worked during the evaluation period, up to but not to exceed the number of authorized/funded labor hours, by the rate/hour for the applicable CLINs/SLINs.

(d) SBSIF Earned:

Percentage of Final SBSIF Pool available by Small Business Category Percentages Apply to Each Separate Period

Small Business Category

0001* 0002* 0101* 0201* 0203* 0204* 0301* 0303* 0401* 0403* 0501* 0503*

SB 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65%

HUBZone 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

SDVOSB 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%

SDB 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%

WOSB 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%

HBCU/MI 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%

*If and to the extent options are exercised and award terms are earned and retained

(i) The amount of the Final SBSIF pool will be allocated to the Small Business Categories based on the percentages in the table above. The Contractor may earn the amount available under each category in each period if its subcontracting percentage for the applicable category during that period exceeds the goal established in paragraph

(b) above.

(ii) The Contractor will not earn any of the amounts available under each category if its subcontracting percentage during the period does not exceed the goal for the applicable category established in paragraph (b) above.

(iii) The incentive fee under this clause will be earned or not earned in each category in each period on an individual basis. Failure to earn the amount available under one or more of the categories does not preclude the Contractor from earning the amount available under the remaining category/categories.

(iv) In the event that the SBSIF earned under a category exceeds the total subcontracted dollars obligated under that category, the SBSIF earned will be adjusted downward to be equal to the value of the total subcontracted dollars obligated under that category.

(e) Procedures:

(i) Within 30 calendar days of the end of each evaluation period identified in paragraph (c), the Contractor shall submit to the COR and PCO a Subcontracting Program Performance Report similar to format 294 or equivalent that includes the information required for the Government to determine the amount of SBSIF earned. At a minimum, the Contractor’s Report shall include the total amount obligated against target cost for applicable CLINs/SLINs, the total labor hours worked during the evaluation period by CLIN/SLIN, and any other data required for the Government to evaluate the Contractor’s Small Business Subcontracting performance.

(ii) Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of the Contractor’s Report, the COR will review and evaluate the Contractor’s Report to determine if all required data was provided and if any SBSIF was earned. If the Contractor’s input is inadequate the COR will ask the Contractor to correct the inadequacies of their Report and to submit a revised Report.

(iii) Within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the Contractor’s Report, the COR will meet with the PCO to make a final determination of whether any such Special Incentive has been earned. The PCO will issue a unilateral modification providing earned Special Incentive.

(f) Finality of PCO’s Determination:

The parties agree that determinations of the PCO with respect to the amount of special incentive to be paid to the Contractor are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government. Notwithstanding other term or condition of the contract, a payment under this incentive is not incurred or earned until the effective date of a written contract modification. There will be no rolling forward of unearned SBS incentive fee and there will be no advance payment of SBS incentive fee.

(g) Payment of Special Incentive:

The Contractor will be paid the special incentive amount(s) earned upon submittal of proper invoices to the cognizant Payment Office. The Contractor’s invoice shall show the amount of special performance incentive payable by contract line item. The Contractor’s invoice must cite the appropriate accounting data in order for payment to be effected.

The following table summarizes the maximum SBSIF available to be earned by the contractor for each of the following line items:

LINE

ITEM

MAXIMUM SBSIF

AVAILABLE TO BE

EARNED*

PAYABLE

UNDER

LINE ITEM

0001 0009 0002 0009 0101 0109 0201 0209 0203 0209 0204 0209 0301 0309 0303 0309 0401 0409 0403 0409 0501 0509 0503 0509

* To be completed by the Offeror.

(h) Single Point of Contact:

The Contractor shall establish a single point of contact to deal with the Government on its small business subcontracting activities relating to this contract. The Government encourages the Contractor to pursue activities that will support increasing the level of small business subcontracting participation under this contract including, but not limited to, internal education and training, participation in matchmaking conferences and other outreach efforts, and the use of SUB-Net to post subcontracting opportunities.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

HQ L-2-0003 FACILITY SECURITY CLEARANCE (NAVSEA) (FEB 2012)

(a) No award will be made to any offeror which does not possess a facility security clearance issued by the Defense Security Service at the SECRET level. Naval Sea Systems Command will initiate appropriate security clearance action for any apparent successful offeror which does not already possess such clearance. The Government is not obligated to delay award pending security clearance of any offeror.

(b) This contract requires work with SSN 774 Class submarines stealth performance data that falls under the protection of Alternative Compensatory Control Measures (ACCMs). In addition to possessing SECRET security clearance, personnel accessing classified information in the performance of this contract need also possess ACCM.

Some data and associated information which may be provided by the Government as part of this contract will be subject to need-to-know validation and approval by designated Naval Sea Systems Command classification authorities. Supplemental air-gapped segregation requirements will be enforced for electronic (computer) data and networks. Hard copy (paper) data will be subject to approved physical storage segregation. Such access and approvals will be provided as appropriate upon contract award and codified by modification of Form DD254.

(c) The security classification of this procurement is specified in the Contract Security Classification Specification, DD Form 254, Attachment 4.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

Your attention is directed to FAR 52.215-1, subparagraph (f), in Section L, entitled “Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition,” which provides that: “The Government intends to award a contract or contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors and sub-factors, as applicable, in the solicitation.” This section contains specific evaluation factors for award of a contract pursuant to this solicitation.

Offerors are advised that the Government intends to make an award on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary (see paragraph (f) (4) of FAR 52.215-1). Therefore, each initial offer shall contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint. Statements and representations made in the Offeror’s proposal may be subject to verification by DCAA, other sources, or through an onsite survey by Navy evaluators.

The successful Offeror must have been granted a SECRET facility security clearance by a military department prior to the date of award. The successful Offeror must also show the ability to obtain approval for its facility security clearance that can handle ACCM (Alternative Compensatory Control Measures) data for VA Class submarines, if required.

Offerors are advised the Government will not evaluate any proposal information not contained within the body of the proposal. Letters of transmittal and/or cover letters that forward the proposal to the Government are not considered part of the body of the proposal.

The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the costs proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated cost, the cost of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. (FAR 52.215-1(f)(8)). The Government may eliminate an Offeror whose cost proposal is inconsistent with its technical proposal. The cost realism may be considered by the source selection authority in evaluating performance or schedule risk.

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by analyzing the projected cost for all options in conjunction with the projected cost for the base year requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise options.

2.0 BEST VALUE AWARD CONSIDERATION

The Government intends to award a contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government after evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation. The best value proposal will be selected using a tradeoff process, as defined in FAR 15.101-1, which permits tradeoffs among cost and non-cost factors. Accordingly, the Government may accept other than the lowest cost proposal where the perceived benefits of the higher cost proposal merit the additional cost. Conversely, the Government may select lower-cost, lower rated proposal if the Government determines that the premium associated with the higher-rated proposal is not justified. In making the best value determination, the Government will consider technical merit (i.e. all non-cost factors) to be significantly more important than the Government Total Evaluated Cost/Price. However, the importance of Government Total Evaluated Price as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality in overall technical merit of competing proposals, under the non-price factors.

3.0 BASIS FOR AWARD (NAVSEA) (SEP 1990)

All units of all items will be awarded to one Offeror. Offers, therefore, must be on the basis of furnishing all units of all items.

4.0 PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

FAR 52.247-50 NO EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTING COST (April 1984)

Costs of transporting supplies to be delivered under this contract will not be an evaluation factor for award.

F.O.B. OFFER-RFP (NAVSEA) (SEP 1990)

OTHER THAN FOR CLIN 0006, OFFERORS SUBMITTED ON A BASIS OTHER THAN

F.O.B. ORIGIN SHALL BE REJECTED AS UNACCEPTABLE.

5.0 EVALUATION CATEGORIES AND FACTORS

EVALUATION OF OFFERS

The Government intends to award one contract on the basis of best value to the Government with technical, management, past performance, and cost/price considered. This contract will be for one base year plus five additional option years.

The contract base award will be for one TI-18 OMS Engineering Development Model for Virginia new construction Class Submarines.

Option Year 2 will allow for the procurement of one TI-18 to TI-20 OMS Engineering Development Model upgrade including First Article Test for Virginia new construction Class Submarine and one TI-20 OMS Engineering Development Model for OHIO Replacement Class Submarine.

Option Years 3, 4, and 5 will allow for the procurement of up to 5, 1, and 4 production systems for Virginia new construction Class Submarines, respectively.

Additionally, with each OMS system bought for Virginia new construction Class Submarines there is one (1) OMS pre-cable kit and one (1) OMS spare required.

EDMs, EDM Upgrade, engineering and technical services, and production OMS systems will be procured on a CPIF, while travel and other direct cost support to engineering and technical services will be procured on a Cost only basis.

The Government will determine which proposal demonstrates the required competence for performing the requirements described herein and offers the best value to the Government.

To be considered eligible for award, each Offeror shall submit a response to the RFP that contains a complete response to the requirements of this solicitation. Only one (1) proposal will be accepted from each Offeror. If the Government receives more than one offer from an Offeror, it may reject all offers from the Offeror. Additionally, Offerors are advised that the Government will evaluate only the information contained within the proposal (except past performance data).

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Technical Approach/Management Approach/Past Performance Evaluation

The evaluation will be based on the factors and sub-factors identified below:

1.0 Technical Approach (Factor)

1.1 Hardware & Software Baseline (Sub-factor)

1.2 Systems Engineering (Sub-factor)

1.3 Technology Obsolescence (Sub-factor)

1.4 Production (Sub-factor)

1.5 Facilities (Sub-factor)

1.6 Data Rights (Sub-factor)

2.0 Management Approach (Factor)

2.1 Program Management (Sub-factor)

2.2 Schedule (Sub-factor)

2.3 Personnel (Sub-factor)

2.4 Integrated Logistic Support & Configuration Management (Sub-factor)

2.5 Software Development Plan (SDP) (Sub-factor)

2.6 Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Participation (Sub-factor)

3.0 Past Performance (Factor)

Factors are listed in order of descending importance. The Technical Approach (Factor) is significantly more important than the Management Approach (Factor). The Management Approach (Factor) is more important than Past Performance (Factor).

All sub-factors within Technical Approach factor are also listed in order of descending importance. The Hardware & Software Baseline (Sub-factor) is significantly more important than Systems Engineering (Sub-factor). The System Engineering (Sub-factor) is significantly more important than Technology Obsolescence (Sub-factor). The Technology Obsolescence (Sub-factor) is significantly more important than the Production (Sub-factor). The Production (Sub-factor) is significantly more important than Facilities (Sub-factor). The Facilities (Sub-factor) is significantly more important than Data Rights (Sub-factor).

All sub-factors within Management Approach factor are also listed in order of descending importance. The Program Management (Sub-factor) is significantly more important than Schedule (Sub-factor). The Schedule (Sub-factor) is significantly more important than Personnel (Sub-factor). The Personnel (Sub-factor) is significantly more important than Integrated Logistic Support and Configuration Management (Sub-factor). The Integrated Logistic Support and Configuration Management (Sub-factor) is significantly more important than Software Development Plan (Sub-factor). The Software Development Plan (Sub-factor) is significantly more important than Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Participation (Sub-factor).

Cost/Price includes only one factor, Cost.

The Technical Approach, the Management Approach, and Past Performance factors combined are significantly more important than the Government Total Evaluated Price (GTEP).

The Offeror’s response to the requirements within each factor will be evaluated to determine its technical understanding of the overall requirements and its ability to meet the requirements of the RFP. An evaluation rating of “Unacceptable” in any single factor shall result in the Offeror’s proposal being rated as unacceptable overall, and eliminated from further consideration.

The Offeror’s technical competence will be evaluated to determine the credibility and soundness of the technical approach, including the ability to understand and solve key technical problems, and the ability to meet the delivery schedule and performance requirements.

Offerors are advised that technical proposals may be evaluated without consideration of any proposed subcontractor which is deemed to have an organizational conflict of interest. Any potential organizational conflict of interest will be handled in accordance with the Organizational Conflict of Interest Clause.

See Section L for a detailed description of each Factor and Sub-factor.

1.0 Technical Approach (Factor)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's demonstration of how the Offeror’s proposed design will achieve the OMS performance requirements, SOW, and other exhibits.

1.1 Hardware & Software Baseline (Sub-factor)

The evaluation standard is:

a. The degree to which the offeror's technical approach demonstrates the ability to meet the requirements of the RFP (including all attachments/exhibits and unclassified and classified technical information related to the OMS program (made available in the E- TIC and classified Reading Room).

b. The degree to which the Offeror’s approach to interact and participate with various different IPTs demonstrates an understanding of how the OMS program fits within the A-RCI model and the Offeror’s ability to successfully operate within that model.

c. The degree to which the proposed common OMS system meets the performance specification.

d. The degree to which the Offeror's approach for accomplishing the First Article Testing and Final Acceptance Test demonstrate an understanding of the requirements both before and after delivery to the A-RCI integrator.

e. The degree to which the Offeror's proposed approach demonstrates an understanding of the system interface requirements both internal to the OMS and external to the overall A-RCI software architecture.

1.2 Systems Engineering (Sub-factor)

The Government will determine whether the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates the ability to successfully perform the OMS requirements and interface with the ARCI Sonar System. The Evaluation Standard is:

a. The degree to which the Offeror’s approach for applying a disciplined Systems

Engineering process indicates that the Offeror will be able to successfully accomplish the requirements of the RFP and SOW.

b. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution indicates a detailed technical understanding of how the OMS is integrated and tested with A-RCI Sonar System.

c. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed “Open Source Initiative” approach enables a collaborative environment and how their proposed solution will operate within the A-RCI model.

d. The degree to which the Offeror’s understanding of how the development items transition to production.

1.3 Technology Obsolescence (Sub-factor)

The evaluation standard is the degree to which the Offeror's approach demonstrates an understanding of identifying, mitigating, and replacing obsolete components without having to re-architect the system.

1.4 Production (Sub-factor)

The evaluation standard is the degree to which the Offeror's proposed approach satisfies the production and performance requirements; and the degree to which the Offeror's approach identifies an understanding of interacting and participating with various different IPTs.

1.5 Facilities (Sub-factor)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's ability to stand up, maintain, transition and sustain facilities across all proposed hardware and software baselines; and evaluate if the proposed facilities are appropriate to fully execute the requirements of the RFP (including all attachments/exhibits and unclassified and classified technical information related to the OMS program (made available in the E-TIC and classified Reading Room)), both at a unclassified level, classified level, and ACCM for VA Class submarines. The Government will evaluate the availability of leased facilities to determine whether or not the Offeror has demonstrated that the leased facilities will be available for the entire period of performance of the resultant contract.

1.6 Data Rights (Sub-factor)

In evaluating the Data Rights and Patent Rights, the Government will use information in the proposal to assess the extent to which the rights in technical data (TD), computer software (CS), computer software documentation (CSD), and inventions/patents offered to the Government ensure unimpeded, innovative, and cost effective production, operation, maintenance, and upgrade of the OMS system throughout its life cycle; allow for open and competitive procurement of OMS system enhancements; permit the transfer of the OMS system executable code, object code, and source code to other contractors for use on other systems or platforms; and the Offeror’s approach to be used to support the A-RCI Sonar System integration to enable third party applications and allow for the efficient integration of improvements with the Submarine Acoustic Systems. Offerors that provide GPR or greater data rights to the Government will receive a more favorable evaluation.

2.0 Management Approach (Factor)

2.1 Program Management (Sub-factor)

The evaluation standard is the degree to which the proposal demonstrates the Offeror is capable of managing the program. Further, the Government will evaluate the proposed organization and program control to determine the extent to which it supports ongoing development and production efforts.

2.2 Schedule (Sub-factor)

The evaluation standard is the degree to which the proposal demonstrates the Offeror is capable of managing the risks and meeting the schedule; and the degree to which the Offeror's proposed approach demonstrates an ability to monitor, identify, control, and rectify schedule slippage.

2.3 Personnel (Sub-factor)

The evaluation standard is the degree to which the proposal demonstrates the Offeror utilizes personnel with professional and technical skills to successfully accomplish the requirements of the RFP (including all attachments/exhibits and unclassified and classified technical information related to the OMS program (made available in the E- TIC and classified Reading Room)).

2.4 Integrated Logistics Support & Configuration Management (Sub-factor):

The Government will evaluate the methods, procedures, and controls the Offeror proposed to maintain effective configuration identification, change control, status accounting, and audit of total configuration for hardware, software, and documentation to meet the requirements of the OMS system.

2.5 Software Development Plan (SDP) (Sub-factor)

The Government will evaluate the SDP Approach for a robust software development capability and if its disciplined processes follow CMMI® principles, an Open Architecture approach, configuration management, software problem trouble report

(PTR) management, implement early and often design disclosures, and early testing. The Government will determine whether the SDP demonstrates that the offeror is capable of successfully developing the OMS system in accordance with the requirements.

2.6 Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Participation (Sub-factor)

The Government will evaluate if the Offeror’s subcontractor management approach will result in on-time and compliant services and supplies. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to identifying capable small business concerns. The Government will assess the extent to which Small Businesses are provided meaningful work which broaden the subcontractors’ technical capabilities.

3.0 Past Performance (Factor 3)

Past performance will be assessed as follows:

Evaluation will be based on the Navy's determination of the quality of the Offeror's performance on relevant contracts. Quality of past performance will be determined based on information provided by the Offeror, including information received by contract POCs and information gathered from other resources. Greatest value will be given to those responses which demonstrate the most relevant and best past performance. In determining the relevancy of past performance data, the Government will give greater consideration for contracts similar in proportion to the effort under the current requirements for the OMS system in terms of technology, type of effort (development and fabrication) contract scope, schedule and risk.

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance will be given a “Neutral” rating for Performance Confidence.

The evaluation will also include a review to determine the Offeror’s:

a. Overall Contract Outcome: Ability to satisfactorily complete all tasks while conforming to customer requirements, standards of good workmanship and safe practices.

b. Cost Performance: Ability to accurately forecast and control costs throughout all phases of the contract.

c. Schedule Performance: Ability to develop accurate work schedules and adhere to those schedules without incurring significant additional cost from applying added resources.

d. Technical Performance: Ability to overcome technical challenges by applying sound engineering principles, complete required engineering analyses, and develops adequate technical reports and plans.

e. Customer Relations: Degree of customer satisfaction based on the Offeror’s cooperative behavior, general business-like concern for the interest of the customer, and customer oriented management practices.

f. Management: Ability to effectively manage and prioritize efforts between multiple customers and experience delivering the most efficient solutions with effective schedule adherence.

The currency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Offeror’s performance shall be considered in evaluating past performance. Relevancy will be determined based on similar magnitude, scope, and complexity.

Particular emphasis will be placed on DoD and Navy contracts and subcontracts. Offerors lacking a relevant past performance record or for whom information on past performance is not available or cannot be determined, shall not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

The Government may contact references submitted by Offerors and may use information in the Government’s files (e.g., the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)) to verify information provided with the Offeror’s proposal, as well as information obtained from other customers known to the Government, consumer protection organizations, and others who may have relevant and useful information. Information may also be considered regarding any significant subcontractors.

EVALUATION RATINGS

Excluding Past Performance, the Government will assess the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal and assign an adjectival rating of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable at the factor level as follows:

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

Strength:

An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness:

A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Significant Weakness:

A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Deficiency:

A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level

A contract cannot be awarded to an Offeror with a deficiency.

Risk:

The potential for unsuccessful contract performance

The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

PAST PERFORMANCE RATING

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be procured under this solicitation. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the Offeror performed on the referenced contracts.

The Past Performance Ratings are as follow:

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.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

USE OF PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEM - STATISTICAL

REPORTING (PPIRS-SR) IN PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (NAVSEA) (SEP

2009)

Each Offeror's past performance shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 13.106-2 or 15.305(a)(2), as applicable. The Department of Defense (DOD) has authorized use of PPIRS-SR for use by DOD activities during the acquisition of supplies and services. For purposes of this solicitation, contractor past performance may be based on data from PPIRS-SR. The Offeror's quality and delivery classifications from PPIRS-SR will be used in conjunction with the Offeror's references, the criteria in FAR 13.106-2 or 15.305(a)(2), as applicable, and other provisions of this solicitation.

The purpose of PPIRS-SR is to provide source selection officials with quantifiable past performance information regarding delivery and quality.