15RGR66_0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to add 252.227-7027 to Section I and revise CNIN-M-0002 in the section Standards for Evaluation for Factor III (Price). All other terms adn conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Jan-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 N00164-15-R-GR66

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-Dec-2014

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

08-Jan-2015

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CRANE DIV

M. HORNBUCKLE

BLDG 121

300 HIGHWAY 361

CRANE IN 47522-5001

N00164 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N00164-15-R-GR66

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

252.227-7027 Deferred Ordering Of Technical Data Or Computer Software APR 1988

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

CNIN-M-0002 BEST VALUE EVALUATION (JUN 2014)

a) As specified in the FAR 52.215-1 “Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition” provision, the

Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary.

b) 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 additional benefits of the higher cost proposal merit the additional cost. Conversely, the Government may select a 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 (e.g. all non-cost factors) to be significantly important than the Government Total Evaluated Price.

However, the importance of Total Evaluated Price calculated by the Government as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality in overall technical merit of competing proposals, under the non-price factors.

c) A proposal must be acceptable for the offeror to be eligible for award. To be eligible for award, Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions and representations and certifications and to provide all information required by Section L of this solicitation. Failure to comply with all the solicitation requirements may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award.

PROPOSALS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS STATED HEREIN MAY BE

DETERMINED UNACCEPTABLE AND MAY BE REJECTED WITHOUT FURTHER

EVALUATION.

d) Offerors must meet the standard for FAR 9.104 for responsibility to be eligible for award. The Government may conduct a Pre-Award Survey as part of this source selection. Results of any survey will be evaluated to determine each Offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation. Any such survey may also be used to verify statements and representations made in the Offeror’s proposal. The purpose of a preaward survey is to obtain information not available to the contracting officer to make a responsibility determination prior to contract award.

e) Proposals will be rated on the evaluation factors listed below. It should be noted that cost/price does not have a finite numerical weight. Evaluation factors (other than cost/price) are significantly more important than cost/price. However, cost/price is an important factor and should be considered when preparing proposals. The Government reserves the right to award to a lower cost offeror when the offers are considered essentially equal in terms of technical capability, or when specific strengths and/or benefits associated with a technically superior offer do not support any associated cost or price premium. In summary, cost/price/technical capability tradeoffs will be made.

NOTE: A finding of “Unacceptable” in one technical factor and/or subfactor may result in the entire proposal being determined unacceptable.

f) The offeror’s proposal shall be in the format prescribed by, and shall contain a response to, each of the areas identified in Section L. The order of relative importance for the evaluation factors is established as follows:

FACTOR I - Technical Capability/Approach SUBFACTORS A. Maintainability/Reliability B. NAVSEA TRM Compliance C. First Article Approach D. Design and Production Schedules E. Subcontractor/Teaming Arrangements F. Small Business Participation

FACTOR II - Past Performance SUBFACTORS

A. Quality B. Customer Satisfaction

FACTOR III – Price

Factor I (Technical Capability/Approach) is significantly more important than Factor II (Past Performance), and Factor I is significantly more important than Factor III (Price). Factor II is significantly more important than Factor III. Factor I and Factor II (factors other than price), when combined, are significantly more important than Factor III (price). The price factor becomes more important as the degree of equality of Factors Other Than Price increases, or when the price is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government.

Under Factor I, Subfactor A (Maintainability/Reliability) is slightly more important than Subfactor B (NAVSEA Technical Review Manual (TRM) Compliance). Subfactors A and B are significantly more important than subfactor C (First Article Approach), D (Design and Production Schedules), E (Subcontractor/Teaming Arrangements), and F (Small Business Participation). Subfactors A, B, C, D, E, and F are listed in descending order of importance. Under Factor II, Subfactors A (Quality), and B (Customer Satisfaction), are listed in descending order of importance. Factor III, Price will not be rated, but will be considered in determining the "best value" to the Government. Past Performance information may be evaluated upon receipt prior to the closing date of the solicitation.

STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION:

FACTOR I: TECHNICAL

The technical evaluation will be a subjective assessment of the offeror’s ability to meet the requirements of the technical data package, to include but not be limited to, the specification, statement of work, and drawings. The evaluation will also consider the successful application of Government and industry standards and best practices and innovative approaches that added value to the project/program and benefitted the Government. The objective of the evaluation is to:

1. develop insight into the offeror’s relative capability and the relative risk associated with contracting with the offeror; and

2. determine the degree to which the offeror has previously encountered the kinds of work, uncertainties, challenges, and risks that it is likely to encounter under the prospective contract.

A subcontract participation data form shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section “L”. Evaluation of an offeror’s proposal shall be based on the information presented concerning the amount of participation of firms designated as part of the socio-economic programs as described in FAR Part 19. Ratings shall be assigned based on the amount of participation when subcontracting opportunities exist.

Each factor and subfactor will be assigned an adjectival rating as follows:

FACTOR II: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will assess each offeror’s and proposed significant subcontractor’s past performance. The assessment will be an unbiased judgment about the quality of an offeror’s past performance. The Government will use its subjective assessment to make a comparative assessment of an offeror’s capability. Past performance is a measure of the degree to which an offeror satisfied its customers in the past and complied with the Specification, Drawings, Statement of Work, Performance Work Statement, contract schedule and contract terms and conditions.

Past performance is also a measure of the risk of performance associated with the offeror.

This factor focuses on relevance of corporate experience to this task and the quality of relevant experience. Experience relative to this task will be assessed by considering aspects such as the following. These do not constitute separately evaluated subfactors:

(1) Quality of product or service

(2) Overall Customer Satisfaction

The Government may base its judgment about the quality of an offeror’s past performance on:

(1) Records of objective measurements and subjective ratings of specified performance attributes, if available, and

Table 1. Technical Ratings Rating Description Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

Table 2. Technical Risk Ratings Rating Description Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

(2) Statements of opinion about the quality of specific aspects of an offeror’s performance, or about the quality of an offeror’s overall performance.

In addition to the sources identified by the offeror, the Government may review Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and/or DOD Past Performance Information Retrieval System ratings and other existing past performance ratings on relevant contracts. The Government may also review other relevant past performance information contained in local files and other sources, including Federal, State, and local Government agencies, Better Business Bureaus, an offeror’s customers and business associates , published media and electronic databases.

General trends in a contractor’s past performance will also be considered.

The Government reserves the right to limit the number of references it decides to contact and to contact references other than those provided by the offeror. The evaluation will take in account the same type of information regarding significant subcontractors proposed in the offeror’s proposal.

The Contracting Officer is not responsible for locating or securing any information not furnished with the offer.

The SSA/Contracting Officer may, however, utilize all available information, including information not provided by the offeror, in the past performance evaluation. The Government reserves the right to review less than all information submitted, and to only analyze sufficient information to make a reasonable determination of each offeror’s past performance rating. If insufficient information regarding the offeror’s corporate history is available, the offeror is encouraged to submit for evaluation, evidence of relevant past performance on the part of the offeror’s key/principal employees, as either a prime- or sub-contractor.

Past performance is assessed by the SSA/Contracting Officer and is assigned adjectival ratings in the evaluation.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation:

Relevancy - The past performance relevancy rating, as defined in the table below, is the assessment of the offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract's requirements.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING

Rating Definition

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved much of the 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.

Confidence - The past performance confidence rating, as defined in the table below, is the evaluation of the offeror’s demonstrated ability to successfully perform the contract’s requirements, based on past performance information.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

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.

Offerors that have no record of past performance (i.e., new businesses) must submit a signed and dated statement to that effect. If an offer submits a certification statement and the Government has no information available regarding the offeror’s past performance, that offeror will receive a neutral rating (i.e., the offeror is evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably) for past performance. If offerors (prime and significant subcontractors) provide reference information that is deemed not relevant and current as defined in Section L, the offeror will receive a neutral past performance rating for those contracts.

FACTOR III: PRICE

A Price Proposal shall be submitted for the supplies set forth in Section B of this solicitation. Evaluation of an offeror’s proposal shall be based on the information presented in the proposal and information available to the Contracting Office from sources deemed appropriate. Sources typically considered include Defense Contract Audit Agency office, Defense Contract Management Command, other contracts with the same firms for similar items or services, known commercial sources such as Global Insight Inc. (formally Data Resources, Inc.), Standard and Poor, etc. The quality of organization and attention to detail reflected in the business proposal will be considered to be an indication of the quality of organization and level of capability during contract performance. Subjective judgment on the part of the government evaluators is implicit in the entire process.

(a) Proposals will be evaluated for price reasonableness. Price evaluation will be based on the total cost offered for all line items. Estimated ordering quantities will be used to develop an evaluated total price for the comparison to the government estimate, when applicable, and other offers in the competitive range.

Contract Data is “Not Separately Priced”.

(End of Summary of Changes)