N00024-25-R-4101 Amendment A0001.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 address bidders questions. Updates to the solicitation are in red.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-May-2025

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 N0002425R4101

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-Apr-2025

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

22-May-2025

CODE

NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND

SEA 0251

1333 ISAAC HULL AVENUE, S.E

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:

N0002425R4101

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 27-May-2025 03:00 PM to 03-Jun-2025 03:00 PM.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

Attachments Attachment L-1 – Contractor Compliance Checklist Attachment L-2 – DCAA preaward Survey of Prospective Contractors Attachment L-3 – FFP Sample Task SOW Attachment L-4 – CPFF Sample Task SOW

L.1 INQUIRIES BY PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS

The common cut-off date for receipt of all written solicitation questions is 1500 local time Washington, D.C. on 27 May 2025.

Offerors may submit questions, concerns, or request clarification of, any aspect of this solicitation to the Contracting Officer, James (Jim) McGown via email: james.f.mcgowan6.civ@us.navy.mil, and the Contract Specialist, Sherri Patsos via email: sherri.c.patsos.civ@us.navy.mil. The offeror must include the company name in the subject line of the email. The questions should include the page number and paragraph number or identifier, which pertains to the offeror’s question. Comments and questions must reference SOLICITATION N00024-25-R- 4101. Acknowledgement of receipt of questions will not be made.

L.2 ORGANIZATION OF OFFER

Organization and Content. Each offer shall contain all pertinent information in sufficient detail to conduct an effective evaluation. The technical proposal must address the ealuation factors in Section M and include all required documentation. The information shall be organized as follows:

i. Cover Letter

ii. Standard Form 33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award and all its Amendments in Standard Form 30.

iii. Solicitation Sections A through J “Solicitation, Offer and Award” to include all required clause fill-ins

iv. Solicitation Section K “Representation, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors” completed by the

Offeror. Items which are not applicable should be marked N/A

v. Attachments L-1 and L-2 completed by the Offeror

vi. VETS 4212 certification or evidence of submission to Department of Labor for certification

vii. Techincal Proposal, Volume I

viii. Past Performance, Volume II

L.3 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF OFFERS

Offerors are instructed to submit their proposal electronically via the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module (https://piee.eb.mil). Proposals submitted by mail or hand-carried will not be evaluated. Proposals sent through proprietary or third party File Transfer Protocol (FTP) sites or DoD SAFE will not be retrieved. Offerors shall ensure proposal are submitted to the correct solicitation number, N00024-25-R-4101.

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to confirm receipt of proposals. A vendor registration guide for obtaining access to the PIEE Solicitation Module is posted to the Defense Pricing and Contracting website at:

https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/ce/cap/docs/piee/PIEE_Solicitation_Module_Vendor_Access_Instructions.pdf

For instructions on how to post an offer, please refer to the Posting Offer demo:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Posting_Offer.pdf. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to obtain written confirmation of receipt of all electronic files for the full proposal. Offerors’ proposals submitted via the PIEE Solicitation Module shall not contain CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. In the event that the Solicitation Module is down, or if the Offeror experiences technical difficulties, the Offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer for an alternate proposal submission method. This notification must occur prior to the proposal submission deadline, with sufficient time for the Contracting Officer to arrance delivery. Offeror notification shall be in writing and may be in conjunction with verbal notification, but verbal notification alone shall not be sufficient. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to obtain written confirmation of receipt of all electronic files of the full proposal by the NAVSEA Contracting office. All proposals received after the exact time specified for receipt will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.215-1. In the event of a dispute of proposal time submission, the submittal date and time documented in PIEE shall serve as the official time that the proposal was submitted to the Government.

Offerors may submit only one proposal as a prime Contractor. Only one contract will be awarded per successful Offeror inclusive of all divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates under common control.

Since there are firm fixed price CLINs included in this solicitation, a DCMA/DCAA approved accounting system is not required to be eligible for award of a MAC. However, successful awardees would not be eligible to receive a cost type DO/TO until a pre-award survey of the Offeror’s accounting system complies in all material respects with the criteria contained in Standard Form 1408 (SF1408). Upon request, the Government will initiate requests for accounting system review for any Successful Offeror that does not currently have an approved system after awards have been made from this solicitation. Documentation will be provided to the successful awardees that they will need to submit and complete the preaward accounting system adequacy checklist and return it to the Government before the audit request can be initiated. Financial capability reviews are now being conducted by DCMA instead of DCAA. Documentation for this review will need to be provided to DCMA upon request. This will be required after award has been made, so no submission is required with the proposal being requested by the solicitation.

L.4 CONTENT OF PROPOSAL

Volumes Offeror’s proposal shall consist of two (2) separate volumes as noted in the table below.

VOLUME Factor ELEMENT PAGE LIMITATION TITLE N/A N/A N/A N/A Cover Letter N/A N/A N/A N/A Completed and Signed SF-

N/A N/A N/A N/A Completed Attachment L-1 and L-2 I 1 1 20 Management Approach &

Capability I 1 2 15 per sample delivery order

30 pages total Technical Approach – Sample Orders

I I 3 5 Safety II 2 N/A 20 Past Performance

An Offeror’s proposal shall include:

(1) Cover Letter that includes the following:

This cover letter shall provide the information outlined in FAR 52.215-1 (c)(2). The time to address any exceptions to the solicitation’s requirements/terms/conditions is prior to proposal submission. The cover letter shall state that the proposal is made without qualification or exception to any terms and conditions appearing in the solicitation.

The Offeror shall affirmatively state that the accompanying proposal:

a. Is for all requirements as stated in the solicitation (including all attachments, appendices, and amendments thereto)

b. Is made without qualification or exception to any terms and conditions appearing in the solicitation

c. the date the offer is valid through (this must be a minimum of 180 calendar days after proposals are due)

Additionally, Offeror shall include:

a. Standard Form 33, “Solicitation, Offer and Award,” with blocks 13-18 completed by the Offeror

b. Standard Form 30, “Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract,” with blocks 15A-15C completed by the Offeror for all amendments and signed by the Offeror

c. Solicitation Sections A through J “Solicitation, Offer and Award” to include all required clause fill-ins

d. Solicitation Section K “Representation, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors” completed by the

Offeror. Items which are not applicable should be marked N/A

e. Attachments L-1 and L-2 completed by the Offeror

f. VETS 4212 certification or evidence of submission to Department of Labor for certification

(2) Volumes I and Volume II must be provided in separate files.

All pages shall contain the phrase: “SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE”. The written portions of the proposal shall use no smaller than industry standard word processor 10-point proportional font, Times New Roman. Every figure and table shall be numbered. Font size for tables and figures shall be no smaller than 8-point. Use at least 1-inch margins on the top and bottom of the pages and ¾ inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume.

Files shall be virus-free and compatible with Microsoft Office 2016, Microsoft Project 2016 and Adobe Acrobat X™. All spreadsheets or mathematical computations shall be working versions, including formulas and computations. Note, submission of locked spreadsheets will not be acceptable. Original documents created in Microsoft Word, Excel, or equivalent shall be the actual workable documents, and not scanned Portable Document Format (PDFs). All Microsoft Excel files shall be completely readable and editable, as to ascertain the validity of the pricing or other data contained therein. All data and tables shall be in a printable format. All Adobe Acrobat files shall be word-searchable. Drawings shall be submitted in an AutoCAD compatible format and PDF, with name, RFP number, and RFP Volume Section Number.

L.5 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH FACTOR

(1) Factor 1 – Technical

a. Element 1– Management Plan and Key Personnel and Key Team Members

Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Offeror submittals shall address two aspects under this factor:

Management Plan and Key Personnel Experience.

i. Management Plan: Offerors must provide a management plan for accomplishing contract requirements.

Items that shall be addressed include: the Offeror’s approach to handling multiple, world-wide delivery orders; how the offeror will interact with subcontractors-teaming firms in accomplishing delivery order requirements; and how the offeror will interact with the Government in terms of communication throughout the life of the MAC and individual delivery orders.

ii. Key Personnel and Key Team Members: Offerors must submit resumes for all proposed individuals in the key personnel categories listed in the solicitation N00024-25-R-4101. Each resume shall not exceed three (3) pages in length and shall include at a minimum, a list of relevant projects with contract amounts, dates completed, and contract number for reference checks. Resumes shall also address education completed, and number of years worked in the field and, if working for the offeror, indicate how long.

Offerors that propose key personnel that are not currently employed by the offeror must also provide letters of commitment. Offerors must also identify roles and responsibilities for proposed key personnel and any proposed key personnel not currently employed by the offeror. In addition, offerors must identify roles and responsibilities for any proposed key team members (i.e., subcontractors performing over 30% of the work, teaming/partnering entities, and joint venture members). Offerors shall provide a summary key personnel matrix listing the qualification of proposed individuals for the contract and the sample order.

Required Key Personnel:

Positions

Program Manager Marine Construction Supervisor

Minimum Qualifications

Program Manager: The Program Manager shall have, at a minimum, a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited four-year college or university applicable to the work to be performed under this contract, preferably in engineering. This individual must have demonstrated technical writing capability. The individual must have ten (10) years engineering experience, including engineering management experience. At least four (4) of those years must come from work on contracts of similarly complex nature and financial magnitude. The individual’s experience must also include four (4) years performing the following:

o Reviewing and approving the work of project managers, engineers, support staff, and contract administrative personnel o Financial management including management information systems, reporting, and negotiations for supplies and support.

Marine Construction Supervisor: The Marine Construction Supervisor must have, at a minimum, 20 years of professional experience in ocean and/or marine construction projects. A minimum of eight (8) years of the experience shall have been in direct supervision of multi-disciplined construction labor forces including equipment and personnel for technically complex projects. Specific experience shall include mooring installations, pile/plate anchor operation, construction operations aboard commercial and/or government construction vessels, underwater inspections, vessel positioning operations, marine crane and winch operations, and personnel safety procedures. A minimum of ten (10) years of the experience shall have been responsibility for deck operations for ocean or marine construction projects. This shall include supervision of construction crews and associated marine equipment operations such as floating cranes, spud barges or jack-up barges, anchor handling boats, supply boats, deck winches, cable handling machinery, welding and burning equipment.

b. Element 2, Technical Approach - Sample Delivery Order

Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The offeror shall provide two complete sample order proposals on the attached sample Order SOWs (See Attachment L-3 and L-4). The sample order proposals shall describe in detail the proposed technical approach to perform in accordance with the sample delivery order SOWs.

The sample delivery order proposal shall address the following:

Identification of staff assigned to each sample order project, including key personnel categories and a summary of personnel assigned to specific areas of expertise required within the sample delivery order requirements.

Describe in detail the specific technical capability and expertise proposed that will meet the requirements of the sample order SOWs.

Submit a work plan for each sample order in accordance with the requirements described in the SOWs.

o Each work plan shall include a detailed work breakdown structure. The work plans are a narrative document that explain the offerors intended methods and resources for performing the proposed orders. As part of the work plan, the contractor shall identify major milestones, tasks and critical path items. This schedule information should be cross- referenced to the schedule as identified in the paragraph below.

The sample order proposals shall include schedules that show the order in which the offeror proposes to perform the work and the dates on which the offeror contemplates starting and completing all major milestones (including acquiring materials, equipment, permits, and inspections as applicable) assuming the sample delivery order is awarded on April 1st 2025.

The schedules shall be in the form of a progress chart of suitable scale (MS Office compatible) to indicate the amount of work schedule for completion by any given date, constraints or prior steps needed before continuing during the installation period.

Describe the technologies to be used in completion of the sample order

c. Element 3, Safety:

Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The offeror shall submit the following information (Note: for a partnership or joint venture, the following submittal requirements are required for each contractor who is part of the partnership or joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required.

OSHA Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors).

OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate and

Total Case Rate (TCR) For the five (5) previous complete calendar years, submit your OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rates and Total Case Rates (TCR) (annual rates, not an overall average), as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If you cannot submit an OSHA DART Rate or TCR, affirmatively state so, and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART Rate or TCR data, and any upward or downward trends, should be addressed as part of this element including explanations of corrective actions taken for improvement.

Technical Approach to Safety and Subcontracting Safety Narrative

Describe the Offeror’ s approach to implementing and executing a Safety Management System (SMS) including Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS.

Describe the plan that the offeror will implement to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors, as a part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors. Also, describe any innovative methods that the Offeror will employ to ensure and monitor safe work practices at all subcontractor levels.

The Government reserves the right to review other available sources (public/Government internal) of information. These may include but are not limited to OSHA data, Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS), etc.

(2) Factor 2: Past Performance

The Offeror shall demonstrate through its past performance on efforts of similar size, scope, and complexity that the Offeror will be able to perform the requirements outlined in this solicitation. The Offeror shall provide information that depicts its depth of past performance and qualification under contracts that have helped to establish its management and technical capability for the scope of work and variety of skill categories and staffing levels proposed to perform work consistent with the size and scope of this requirement.

The Offeror shall submit descriptions for at least one and up to three previous Government contracts (most recent prime and significant subcontracts received, or in performance, during the past five years) which are most relevant to the effort required by this solicitation. Commercial or state and local contracts may be included if necessary. The Offeror shall provide information which depicts its (and any major subcontractors’) depth of experience and qualification under similar contracts that have helped to establish its management and technical capability for the scope of work for this solicitation. The Government will also consider such factors as performance quality and schedule timeliness. The Offeror shall place particular emphasis on both recent (i.e.

within the past five years) and current ongoing efforts. The description shall include the following information in the following format:

Do not include cost or price information in this volume. In the Past Performance Volume, the Offeror shall demonstrate through its past performance on efforts of similar size, scope, and complexity that the Offeror will be able to perform the requirements outlined in this solicitation. If possible, the Offeror should provide three recent and relevant prior contract efforts. The Offeror shall clearly describe how each prior contract effort is recent and relevant in terms of period of performance, similarity of product/service/support to this solicitation, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

The Offeror shall provide information that depicts its depth of past performance and qualification under contracts that have helped to establish its management and technical capability for the scope of work and variety of skill categories and manning levels proposed to perform work consistent with the size and scope of this requirement. The Offeror shall place particular emphasis on both recent (within five years of the proposal submission date) and relevant current Navy efforts.

The Offeror shall provide a past performance narrative not to exceed five (5) pages in length that addresses the following topics:

• The Offeror shall demonstrate its past performance in fulfilling critical requirements and processes and its ability to understand and resolve technical risk issues within its organizational structure, including interaction with its subcontractors.

• The Offeror shall discuss past performance in the implementation of form-fit-function replacement solutions similar to that proposed.

• As required by DFARS 215.303(c)(i), the Offeror shall provide information on its past performance demonstrating compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8 and FAR 52.219-9.

Additionally, the Offeror must also submit past performance information associated with at least one (1) recent and relevant prior contract effort for each proposed subcontractor that will perform more than 10% of the total contract effort based on the Offeror’s total proposal price. The information submitted for each subcontractor shall not exceed two (2) pages in length.

NOTE: The Government reserves the right to use contract performance data provided in the Offeror’s proposal and contract performance data obtained from other sources, such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) database, and from the points of contact identified by the Offeror in its proposal.

The Government reserves the right to collect and use information from sources other than those identified by the Offeror in its proposal to evaluate past performance. This may include, but is not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials.

The total page count for Past Performance shall not exceed 20 pages.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to make award to each and all qualifying Offerors. Qualifying offeror is defined at FAR 2.101, as “an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing.”

The Government will evaluate the Technical factor (Factor 1) for acceptability. If an Offeror is rated as “unacceptable” for Factor 1, the Government will not further consider the Offeror’s proposal. If an Offeror is rated “acceptable” for Factor 1, the Government will evaluate the Past Performance factor (Factor 2). The Past Performance factor (Factor 2) will be evaluated on an adjectival basis. Offerors proposals rated as Acceptable for Factor 1 and Unknown Confidence (Neutra) and above for Factor 2 will qualify for award.

The Government will not evaluate Cost/Price, as it is not part of the Evaluation Factors. However, to demonstrate an understanding and capability of the Sample Order requirements (attachments L-3 and L-4), Cost/Price information shall be included within the Sample Orders.

The Government intends to award multiple contracts resulting from this solicitation to those responsible offerors whose proposals represent the best value after evaluation, in accordance with the evaluation factors and elements specified in the solicitation.

The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the offerors submitting the proposal(s) determined to represent the best value—the proposal(s) most advantageous to the Government, with all factors considered.

Submission of incomplete proposals will be considered grounds for dismissal. Offerors are advised that technical proposal may be evaluated without consideration for any proposed subcontractor which is deemed to have an organizational or personal conflict of interest.

The solicitation requires the evaluation of the following non-cost/price factors:

Factor 1 – Technical Element 1 - Management Plan and Key Personnel and Key Term Members Element 2 - Technical Approach –Sample Order Element 3 - Safety Factor 2 – Past Performance

Elements are for the purpose of organizing responses and will not be separately evaluated.

M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS

II. DEFINITIONS

The following definitions are used in the evaluation of Factor 1. These qualifiers help to highlight particular elements of the technical factor that have significant impact (positive or negative) to the evaluation.

Strength: An aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength:

An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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

Significant Weakness:

A flaw 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.

Risk: As it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assess 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 or performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccesful contract performance.

III. RATINGS

In assessing the Technical Factor 1, the Government will apply the following ratings of acceptable or unacceptable::

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

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

(1) Factor 1 –

a. Element 1- Management Plan and Key Personnel and Key team Members

(1) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s submittal to determine if the proposed key-team members and key personnel indicate a likelihood of successful completion of the requirements of this solicitation’s statement of work. The Government will evaluate the above through the following methods:

Key Personnel resumes will be evaluated based on the resume information provided and its relevancy to the functional areas specified in both the SOW and Sample Order.

The offeror will be evaluated on their application of the key personnel to the anticipated requirement specified in the SOW.

Key Personnel will be evaluated based on work performed for like, or similar, requirements to that described in the SOW and the depth of relevant experience in years and technical relevance.

The submitted management plan will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror proposes a plan that is realistic and indicates a high likelihood of successful contract performance, including the offeror's approach to handling multiple, world-wide delivery orders; how the offeror will interact with key subcontractors-teaming firms in accomplishing the delivery order requirements;

and how the offeror will interact with the Government in terms of communication throughout the life of the MAC and individual orders.

In addition, the key personnel will be evaluated on the strength of the proposed resumes individually and collectively. The Government reserves the right to utilize other information available to it to evaluate key personnel. For example, the Government may query references and other end user representatives regarding the experience of proposed Key Personnel and the quality of their performance. Other sources of information concerning Key Personnel may include Government past performance databases, Inspector General reports, General Accounting Office reports, and information in the media concerning key personnel.

b. Element 2, Technical Approach - Sample Orders

Basis of Evaluation:

In order to evaluate the offerors’ ability to perform the type of work typically procured under this contract, two sample orders are issued as attachments L-3 and L-4, one for refurbishment work (FFP CLINs 0001 and 0003) and one for sustainment work (CPFF CLINs 0002 and 0004). The offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which the offeror demonstrates an effective technical approach to implementing all technical element requirements of the sample delivery order statements of work and whether all submittal requirements are met. The offeror will not be evaluated for cost/price reasonableness as there is no work associated with the IDIQ solicitation.

All pricing provided by the offeror within Section B of the sample orders will be based on a hypothetical cost/price. The cost/price provided shall demonstrate an understanding of the sample requirements. In addition, the Government will evaluate whether the offeror’s proposal for both sample Order submissions indicate an understanding and capability of the sample delivery order requirements.

c. Element 3, Safety:

(1) Basis of Evaluation

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors on this effort. The Government’s safety evaluation will collectively consider the following elements for each offeror: (1) OSHA DART and TCR; and (2) Technical Approach to Safety and Subcontracting Safety Narrative along with other sources of information available to the Government as part of such collective evaluation

(i) OSHA Rates:

The Government will evaluate the OSHA DART and TCR to determine if the offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates. Lower OSHA Rates will be evaluated more favorably. Missing data without an explanation is considered a deficiency. For consistency, as a general guideline, the Government will use the table below to assist in evaluating the DART and TCR of the offerors.

Risk DART Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 1.0 Low Risk From 1.0 to 1.99 Moderate Risk From 2.0 to 2.99 High Risk From 3.0 to 4.0 Extremely High Risk Greater than 4.0

Risk TCR Very Low Risk Less Than 2.49 Low Risk From 2.5 to 3.49 Moderate Risk From 3.5 to 4.49 High Risk From 4.5 to 5.99 Extremely High Risk Greater than 6.0

(ii) Technical Approach to Safety and Subcontracting Safety Narrative

The Government will evaluate the Technical Approach to Safety to determine the degree to which the Offeror describes a viable SMS that addresses:

Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS; and

The degree to which the technical approach describes a logical management plan to hold themselves and their subcontractors accountable for adhering to the safety requirements of the contract.

The Government will evaluate the subcontracting safety narrative to determine the degree to which subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the selection of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project. The Government will also evaluate the effectiveness of the methods that the offeror will employ to ensure and monitor safe work practices at all subcontractor levels.

(2) Factor 2, Past Performance:

Evaluation Standard

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). The Government will assign adjectival ratings described below for Factor 2. The Government reserves the right to not perform a past performance evaluation on any Offeror that is assigned an “Unacceptable” adjectival rating under Factor 1 – Technical.

Ratings for Factor 2 For recency, each past performance reference will be assigned a rating of “Recent” or “Not Recent” as determined by whether the effort was performed within the past five calendar years from solicitation release date. For relevancy, each past performance reference will be assigned a rating in accordance with the below table.

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.

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into a performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; rather, an overall performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The Government will assign an overall performance confidence assessment ratings in accordance with the below table.

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.

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.

The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

While “Neutral Confidence” ratings will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably, the Government may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff.

(End of Summary of Changes)