3.04_Amendment_(4)_N0010422RK008.pdf

SEE SCHEDULE

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 correct the CLIN 0002 Volume 4 Price Factor Evaluation quantity on Pg. 132 of the solicitation to 1,088 EA and add the EA unit of measure to CLIN 0003. Please reference section for more information.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Feb-2022

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 N0010422RK008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-Jan-2022

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

22-Feb-2022

CODE

NAVSUP WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT

ANDREW WATSON CODE N772.10

5450 CARLISLE PIKE SUITE 410

MECHANICSBURG PA 17050-2411

N00104 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N0010422RK008

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

SECTION M.1 - Basis for Award: Evaluation Factors for Award (Section M)

The Government will evaluate proposals submitted in accordance with this section and will make a determination considering the following factors: Past Performance and Price. Based upon limited competition among Offerors, the Government will award the contract to the Offeror that demonstrate the best value to the Government.

The Government plans to award one contract to the Offeror that communicates the best value in its proposal. The tradeoff determination seeks to identify each proposal’s relative strengths, weaknesses, and risks. This means the Government may award the contract to an Offeror that does not offer the lowest price. Selection decisions consider an evaluation of the factors indicated above using an adjectival rating system that grades an Offeror’s non-price factors. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness, but not adjectivally rated.

The Government will evaluate each proposal strictly in accordance with Section M. Selection of the successful Offeror follows an assessment of each proposal against the solicitation requirements and the cited evaluation criteria. Section L of the solicitation contains Criteria to review and assess information provided by the Offerors in response to information sought. The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to hold exchanges with industry, which may include clarifications, communications, and discussions as defined in FAR 15.306.

Responsibility: Pursuant to FAR 9.103, the Contracting Officer will award only to a contractor he or she deems a responsible contractor. Separate from the best value source selection criteria, each Offeror must be able to demonstrate it meets the standards of responsibility set forth in FAR 9.104.

a) The Government reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey on any Offerors considered for award, to assist in the Contracting Officers determination of Contractor responsibility. The Contracting Officer may also either make a responsibility determination without requesting any information from an Offeror or require the Offeror provide information to substantiate that it satisfies the general responsibility standards of FAR 9.104-1. The Contracting Officer considers an Offeror’s ability to respond to his or her request(s) for information promptly as an indication of the Offeror’s level of responsibility.

b) Nothing in this provision limits the Contracting Officer’s discretion to rely on information available from other sources (e.g., past performance databases, discussions with other entities familiar with the Offeror) or to use any other technique described in FAR 9.1 when determining whether the Offeror satisfies the FAR 9.104-1 general responsibility standards.

Other Evaluation Considerations: The Government will evaluate proposals in terms of Offerors’ past-performance or unrealistic prices. These can indicate a lack of understanding the requirement’s complexity and risk(s) to the Offerors.

SECTION M.2 - Order of Importance

The Government reserves the right to make the award to an Offeror other than the Offeror that submits the lowest overall evaluated price, using a Best Value trade-off analysis method of procurement. Offerors must receive a rating of at least limited confidence in Past Performance to be eligible for award.

Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors:

The Government intends to award the responsible Offeror that proposes the best value to the Government, based on the evaluation of these factors and sub-factors:

• Past Performance Factor o Sub-Factor 1: Quality o Sub-Factor 2: Timeliness of Delivery o Sub-Factor 3: Option

• Small Business Participation Factor

• Price Factor

The Government will find Offerors that do not propose on all above factors non-compliant and may remove them from the competitive range and/or not rate the proposal. Offerors will submit in accordance with Section L.

SECTION M.3 – Evaluation Factors The purpose of the proposal evaluation is to ensure competitive proposals are examined impartially and comprehensively. The evaluators may verify any statements and representations made in the Offeror’s proposal.

Each proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria set forth below.

Volume 1: Introductory Volume: Offerors’ proposals shall remain valid for a minimum of 90 days after the close of the RFP and be in compliance with the submission instructions provided in Section L.

Volume 2: Past Performance Factor Evaluation: The Government considers past performance information a predictor of future contract performance. The Government bases its degree of confidence it has that the Offeror will successfully complete the requirements in accordance with the contract terms on the Offeror's demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. Assessment of the Offeror’s past performance translates a means of evaluating the relative capability of the Offeror(s) to achieve the RFP’s requirements.

The Government may consider the currency, degree of relevance, source and context of the past performance information it evaluates as well as general trends in performance, and demonstrated corrective actions. A significant achievement, problem, problem resolution, or lack of relevant data in any element can become an important consideration in the assessment process. A negative finding in any element may result in a lower past performance confidence assessment rating.

Absent any recent and relevant past performance history, the Government assigns an Unknown Confidence (Neutral) Past Performance rating to the Offeror. Without past performance information, the Government does not consider the Offeror’s past performance favorably or unfavorably.

The Government may use information obtained from other sources to conduct past performance evaluation, or it may use information with regard to other contracts performed by the Offeror of which it has knowledge, whether or not those contracts are disclosed to the Government by the Offeror.

The Government will rate each Offeror on its recent and relevant contractual information. The definitions for recent and relevant are provided in Section L of the solicitation. The Government will assign recent and relevant ratings in accordance with the below tables.

Relevancy Ratings:

Relevancy of the past performance information will be determined as follows:

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

Only information determined to be relevant (any level of relevancy) and meeting the standard for recent as defined in Section L will be further considered in the past performance evaluation.

Performance Confidence Assessment:

The Government will assess how well the Offeror performed on recent, relevant contracting efforts. The Government may use information presented in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume in addition to information independently obtained from outside sources, to include assessment reports, databases, interviews, and other sources. Sub-factor evaluation uses an overall Past Performance factor rating assigned from the table below based on the individual sub-factor ratings and findings. If either Past Performance sub-factor receives a No Confidence rating, the overall factor rating will be No Confidence.

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

Neutral Confidence

Neither recent nor relevant performance records are available or the Offeror's performance record is so sparse, the Government cannot assign a meaningful confidence assessment fairly. Past performance rating is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

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

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

The Government may use additional, external sources to evaluate past performance. These sources include, but are not limited to, PPIRS, FAPIIS, or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and the Defense Contract Management Agency. The Government also has the right to consider information regarding an Offeror’s past performance up to date of award. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide complete past performance information and thorough explanations as required by Section L. The Government is not obligated to make another request for the required information.

Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a No Confidence rating, since problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an Offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems. The Offeror is required to demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming any problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified, clearly.

The Past Performance Factor Evaluation consists of two Sub-factors:

Sub-factor 1 – Quality: The Offeror demonstrates evidence of a Quality Management System (QMS) that has effectively minimized defects and implemented procedures for identification, control, corrections, and/or resolution of deficiencies identified in components, assemblies, and the end items for recent and relevant efforts.

Sub-factor 2 – Timeliness of Delivery: The Offeror provides clear evidence of how it met interim milestones, controlled supplier performance, provided reliable delivery, was responsive to technical direction, and completed work on time for recent and relevant efforts.

Volume 3: Small Business Participation Factor Evaluation: As required by DFARS 215.304, Small Business Participation is an evaluation factor in this acquisition. The Small Business Participation Factor contains no subfactors.

The Offeror shall submit a Small Business Participation plan. Small Business Participation is evaluated in order to support the Government policy that Small Businesses be provided maximum practicable opportunities in Government acquisitions. This section applies to all Offerors (large and small). This is NOT an assessment of a small business subcontracting plan (IAW FAR 19.7). The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror's Small Business Participation plan demonstrates the Offeror's commitment to maximizing opportunities for small businesses. The Government will consider both the degree to which an Offeror meets or exceeds any single socio-economic category, as well as the number of socio-economic categories that an Offeror meets or exceeds.

Small businesses can claim their own self-performance as part of the small business percentage. The government will consider the following:

1. Proposed Small Business Participation

a. Definitions:

i. Participant, as used in this factor, includes the Offeror as well as any subcontractor.

ii. Participation, as used in this factor, includes the work (dollars) performed by the Offeror, as well as the work (dollars) performed by subcontractors.

b. Proposed Small Business Participation

i. The Government has established the following objectives for this procurement, based on the estimated contract value (using the estimated quantity for each ordering period):

- SB 21.95%

- SDB 3%

- WOSB 3%

- SDVOSB 5%

- HUBZone 5%

ii. The Offeror's proposed percentage of participation (goals) identified in the Contract Participation Plan will be evaluated against the Government's objective for each category.

2. The Government may, at its discretion, evaluate any additional information provided by the Offeror in its small business participation proposal. The Government will develop one overall Small Business Participation rating for the Offeror based on the evaluation criteria described above. Small Business Participation will be rated as follows:

Small Business Participation Factor Rating Definitions:

Small Business Participation Rating Table

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Volume 4: Price Factor Evaluation

The Government will evaluate the price of all proposals but will not use an adjectival rating to rate Offerors. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires the Government award contracts at fair and reasonable prices. The Government uses price analysis to determine price reasonableness and whether proposals reflect an understanding of the required effort required. The Contracting Officer may use additional analysis techniques as needed. In accordance with DFARS clause 252.215-7008, the Government reserves the right to require Certified Cost, Certified Pricing Data, or data other than certified cost and pricing data in the event this solicitation garners only one offer.

a. The Government will evaluate offers according to this formula:

CLIN 0001 145 EA x proposed unit price+ CLIN 0002 1,088 EA x proposed unit price+ CLIN 0003 361 EA x proposed unit price + = Base Total

b. The Government will perform first article testing under this contract. The Government’s cost for this testing affects its evaluation of offers. If an Offeror is required to perform FAT, the Government will add its estimated cost to perform FAT for evaluation purposes only.

SECTION M.4 - Evaluation Process This source selection will be conducted in accordance with the FAR, DFARS, NMCARS, internal NAVSUP guidance and procedures as well as any other applicable regulation or policy. These regulations and procedures provide for checks, balances and independent evaluation of proposals to ensure integrity is maintained throughout the process. Offerors are encouraged to consult the regulations and guidance online. The following is a broad overview of the Evaluation Process:

Initial Proposals: The Government will open and distribute the price and non-price proposals. The Government will determine whether offerors have proposed in accordance with the requirements in Section L. The Government will evaluate Price and Non-price proposals independently against the evaluation factors. The Government may elect to make award based on initial proposals; however, the Government reserves the right to enter into Discussions.

Discussions: If discussions are applicable, the Government will advise all offerors selected to participate in discussions of deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and other areas of risk in their offer, and shall be offered a reasonable opportunity to correct or resolve these areas and to submit price, or other revisions to their offer that may result from the discussions.

Final Proposal Revision (FPR): At the conclusion of discussions, the Government will request that offerors submit their final proposals. The Government will then consider any revisions and/or additional data provided as a result of discussions to determine the Best Value proposal to the Government. The evaluation criteria in Section M shall continue to be the basis for evaluation of the FPRs.

Notification: The Government will provide any notification required during the evaluation process in accordance with FAR 15.5.

(End of Summary of Changes)

The Government will find Offerors that do not propose on all above factors non-compliant and may remove them from the competitive range and/or not rate the proposal. Offerors will submit in accordance with Section L.