N00024-20-R-2210 Amendment 5 6 June 20.pdf

N0002419NR53066

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

Update pricing instructions in Section M regarding engine pricing and Total Evaluated Price calculations absent the “Clutched Dry Run Seawater Pump”.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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 N0002420R2210

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-May-2020

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.

U0005

5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

09-Jun-2020

CODE

NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND (HQ)

1333 ISAAC HULL AVE SE

WASHINGTON NAVY YARD DC 20376-2020

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

X

X 1

N0002420R2210

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M- EVALUATION FACTORS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PART 1 – GENERAL INFORMATION

PART 2 – EVALUATION CRITERIA

PART 3 – DETERMINATON OF CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY

M-1. PART 1 – GENERAL INFORMATION

(a) This section contains the evaluation factors for award. Pursuant to FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to award an IDIQ contract with Firm-Fixed Priced Delivery Orders to the responsible Offeror whose proposals provide the Best Value to the Government; considering price and non-price factors below. Accordingly, award may be made to other than the lowest priced Offerors or to other than the best technical proposal.

(b) The contract will have five (5) ordering periods with a guaranteed minimum of twenty-five (25) boats through the life of the contract.

(c) Proposals will be evaluated to determine compliance with all requirements of the solicitation, including any attachments and exhibits. Proposals will also be evaluated for unique and innovative methods, processes, and/or solutions that are beneficial to the Government. The evaluation criteria will be applied in an identical manner. Each response will be evaluated strictly in accordance with its content and the Government will not assume that performance will include areas not specified in the Offeror’s proposal.

(d) The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions with Offerors.

Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions, if necessary. If a competitive range is established, the Government may limit the number of proposals to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

(e) Offerors must propose prices for all supplies/services and quantities under each line (CLIN) listed on

Attachment 9. The Government may reject as unacceptable any offer for less than the specified quantities for any item.

(f) The proposal must demonstrate to the Government that the Offeror will satisfy each Factor’s requirement.

Proposal information provided for one Factor may be used to assess other Factors if the Government deems it appropriate. Strengths and weaknesses of the Offeror’s proposal, as well as performance risks, will be assessed in determining which proposal is most advantageous to the Government.

(g) The Government reserves the right to waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received.

(h) The Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the Government’s best interest. The

Government reserves the right to award one or more, or no contract, depending on the quality of the quotes received and the availability of funds.

(i) 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.

M-2. PART 2 – EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. In determining the Best Value with trade-offs, proposals will be evaluated based on the factors listed in this subsection.

Volume I – Technical Proposal

Factor 1: Production Capability, Approach and Facilities

Factor 2: Past Performance and Experience

Volume II – Price Proposal Factor 3: Price

Factor 1 (Technical) is more important than Factor 2 (PP&E). Factor 1 (Technical) and Factor 2 (PP&E) combined are significantly more important than Factor 3 (Price). However, as competing quotes approach equality in Factor 1

(Technical) and Factor 2 (PP&E), then Factor 3 (Price) will become more important.

Source Selection: It is the Government’s intention to award one Offeror using a tradeoff source selection approach.

Under this approach, proposals will be compared on the basis of their strengths, weaknesses, and risks. The

Government will select a responsible Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, is most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. A selection may be made to other than the Offeror who offers the lowest evaluated price or to other than the best Technical Proposal.

M-2.1. VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Technical Merit of Design factor will be evaluated and assigned a combined technical/risk rating as follows:

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

The term “strength” is defined as 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. The term “weakness” is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

The term “significant weakness” is defined as a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. The term “risk” is defined as 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 may involve risk of disruption to schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The term “deficiency” is defined as a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

M-2.1.1. FACTOR 1: PRODUCTION CAPABILITY, APPROACH AND FACILITIES:

The Offeror’s proposed technical approach shall be evaluated based upon the information submitted by the Offeror.

All information will be reviewed in detail to ascertain the quality and depth of the responses to the information required by Section L. The Government reserves the right to assign an “Unacceptable” rating for Factor 1 if Offerors fail to submit supporting technical data as described in Section L, or where submitted data is incomplete.

A. Production Capability Level (PCL) of the Offeror: The PCL of the Offeror will be evaluated, and assigned by the Government, based on the information provided by the Offeror, as required in Section L.

The PCL determines the production design, manufacturing, and delivery capability of the Offeror. A higher

PCL will be evaluated more favorably. The minimally acceptable PCL shall be Level I. FRP boats that have been built in higher quantities, have been more recently built, and are closer to 7 meters in size will be evaluated more favorably.

B. Weight Control: The Offeror’s weight controls will be evaluated based on whether the information provided describing the Offeror’s weight control system, or plan, and the example scale weight reports from a previous contract(s), demonstrate the ability to achieve consistent weight variance of less than +/-

5% from the average between boats (completed Light Ship) for a series of similar size boats (6 meters to

11meters). A larger data set of boat weights that demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to achieve a consistent weight variance of less than +/- 5% from the average between boats will be evaluated more favorably.

C. Detail Design, Boat Production and Delivery Schedule: The proposed detail design and boat production schedule will be evaluated for completeness and whether the timelines proposed are reasonable, as stated in

Section L. Proposed delivery schedule will be evaluated against the notional delivery dates provided in

Attachment 10 Delivery Schedule. Offerors that propose an alternative proposal schedule must provide sufficient supporting documentation and explanation to demonstrate both the feasibility of the schedule in meeting the RFP requirements, and the offeror’s ability to meet their proposed schedule. Proposals that contain aggressive or lengthy delivery schedules may be considered to have greater risk, and as such, may be considered less favorable to the Government, than the notional delivery schedule contained in

Attachment 10. Offerors are advised that delivery schedules proposed may become contract required delivery dates in any delivery order resulting from this solicitation. The Government will assess if the

Offeror’s proposed schedule demonstrates an understanding of the efforts and activities required to design and construct the boats in accordance with this RFP.

D. Warranty: Warranty terms and conditions in the completed Attachment 4 will be evaluated for the

Offeror’s ability to provide the minimum acceptable warranties in accordance with Section C Statement of

Work paragraph C-3.042-4 for the proposed boats.

E. M-2.1.2. FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE AND EXPERIENCE:

Past Performance risk ratings will be applied against the Offeror’s stated performance record as delineated by the

Offeror in response to requirements stated in Section L of the RFP and independently substantiated by the

Government. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s (including any major subcontractors or teaming partners proposed) past performance for 1) recency, and 2) quality of products.

The following rating definitions will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance and experience proposal.

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent 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 performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

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

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

Rating Definition

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

M-2.2 VOLUME II – PRICE PROPOSAL

M-2.2.1 FACTOR 3: PRICE:

The Government will not evaluate price adjectivally or assign strengths or weaknesses to the price proposal. The

Government will analyze prices proposed in accordance with FAR15.404 Proposal Analysis to determine fair and reasonable pricing.

Price proposals will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and materially balanced pricing.

The price that will be considered for the Best Value determination is the Offeror’s total evaluated price, as determined by the Government. To arrive at the total evaluated price:

1. The Government will add the proposed prices of all CLINs (Attachment 9). The Government will add the proposed prices of all CLINs (Attachment 9) to determine Total Evaluated Price. The

Government has determined that pricing for the “Clutched Dry Run Seawater Pump” is not available from Steyr at this time. Offerors shall submit pricing for the current engine absent the

“Clutched Dry Run Seawater Pump” but inclusive of all elements to meet the requirements of the spec (i.e. label plate, switch on the console, installation, engineering, profit, overheads etc.). Should pricing become available during evaluations the Government will equally adjust each Offeror’s proposed price for the Engines based on estimated pricing received from Steyr. If pricing is not available prior to award the Government will adjust the successful Offeror’s price by the actual price increase of the Engine when “Clutched Dry Run Seawater Pump” is available.

2. For the purpose of evaluation only the Government will use the labor rate pricing provided in Section B

Note C and assume a labor mix for the 1,000 man-hours Engineering to Production hours at a ratio of 25 percent to 75 percent respectively for CLIN 1018.

Ordering

Period

Percentage Engineering Production

Ordering Period 1 45% 113 338

Ordering Period 2 35% 88 263

Ordering Period 3 5% 13 38

Ordering Period 4 5% 12 37

Ordering Period 5 10% 25 75

100% 250 750

3. For the purpose of evaluation only the Government shall apply percentages to the 1,000 man-hours and

$100,000 material cost across the period of performance as follows:

Year Percentage

Year 1 45%

Year 2 35%

Year 3 5%

Year 4 5%

Year 5 10%

4. The Government will use the labor rate pricing provided in Section B Note C for CLIN 1018, the respective rate will be multiplied by the 1,000 man hours across the years as noted above to calculate a total labor price. The material handling rate will be applied to the $100,000 material cost across the years to calculate a total material price. The resultant amounts for total labor and total material will be added together to calculate the price for 1018.

Offeror should note that the Total Evaluated Price will NOT be the same as the Total Contract Price.

In addition to the Total Evaluated Price, the Government will consider the following areas when determining the best value for the Government.

1. Reasonableness. The Government will evaluate the Total Evaluated Price for reasonableness. Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the Government to determine reasonableness. If, after receipt of a proposal, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist for the efforts and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the Offeror shall be required to provide other than certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-4.

2. Unbalanced Pricing. Proposals will be analyzed to determine if the prices are materially unbalanced.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An unbalanced offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be rejected.

M-3. PART 3 – DETERMINATION OF CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY

Determination of Contractor Responsibility. Statements and representations made in the Offeror’s proposal quote may be subject to verification by Government Agencies, and/or through Pre-Award Surveys. The contracting officer will review offeror submitted Financial Data required by Section L-2.2.1. FAR 9.103 require that the

Contracting Officer make an affirmative determination of responsibility prior to contract award. FAR 9.104-1 states that to be determined responsible, a prospective contractor: 1) has adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them; 2) is able to comply with the required delivery schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments; 3) has a satisfactory performance record; 4) has a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics; 5) has the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them; 6) has the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them; and 7) is otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.

Administrative information submitted will be evaluated for completeness. Any administrative information omitted from the submittal may be addressed through clarifications, provided it does not affect eligibility for award.

However, any adverse information discovered in System for Award Management will not be addressed by the source selection team and the Offeror may be considered not responsible by the Contracting Officer.

Clarity and completeness of the Price volume are of the utmost importance. Offerors should ensure Standard Form

1449 Blocks 17a and 30a-c, Section B and any amendments are signed and returned with their proposal and that

Section K of the solicitation (certifications, representations and other statements) is complete. The reps and certs are in addition to the information in betaSAM.gov.

(End of Summary of Changes)