18RWS21sol_0003.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

Answ er Vendor questions regarding solicitation and product sample Section: L - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS.

Proposal evaluation changes Section: M - BEST VALUE EVALUATION

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-Mar-2018

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 N0016418RWS21

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

04-Dec-2017

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-Mar-2018

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CRANE DIV

D.HARRELL (812-854-8291)

BLDG 121

300 HWY 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:

N0016418RWS21

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been added by full text:

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Question #1: Part number 925986 allows either a single piece construction or a brazed assembly, per drawing.

However, if I am interpreting the solicitation correctly, the solicitation is requiring us to use the single piece construction, and will not allow the brazed option. I’m reading the bottom paragraph on page 8. It states pretty clearly, “single piece construction” and also “except notes 7, 8, and 11”, which are the brazing notes. Looking for concurrence – are we interpreting it correctly? If so, that is fine because we prefer that method anyway.

Answer Question #1: After talking with our engineers, the part is to be a "single piece construction."

Question #2: Part number 372299 is a weldment per drawing, however, the solicitation has listed the category as “machined part”. Same paragraph referenced above. Is it the intent to allow a machined hogout which meets the GEOMETRY of drawing 372299? We believe that method would produce a superior part, however, if the purpose of the sample parts is to demonstrate proficiency in welding, then we should produce the part by the original welded manufacturing process.

Answer Question #2: This was an oversight in the contract. The correct category should have been "manufactured part." While I agree that a machined part would be superior, this has traditionally been a weldment. Additionally, the purpose of this sample was to show proficiency in welding components.

Question #3: Part “AFTFAIRING” – we wanted to clarify that the Edge Band of 2.5” referenced in note 3 is not intended to be excess beyond what is shown in the model, but rather, the Edge Band requirements apply to the outer 2.5” of the part as it’s currently modeled. I believe that’s our only question on that one.

Answer Question #3: Correct, the edge band requirements apply to the outer 2.5" of the part currently modeled and NOT intended to extend the part out an extra 2.5 ".

Question #4: On the Brass part (925986) all of our vendors are recommending C46400 Naval Brass per spec ASTM B171. The QQ-B-626 referenced on the drawing is an obsolete spec and the 360 alloy is not readily available in the required sizes for this part.

No.360 (36000) is 60-63% copper, 2.5-3.7% lead, 0.35% iron.

C464 is 59-62% copper, 0.20% lead, 1.0% tin.

No.360 – half hard - has a tensile strength of 40-45 ksi, yield of 15 ksi, and elongation of 20%

C464 – half hard – has a tensile strength of 75-80 ksi, yield of 20 ksi, and elongation of 20%

The C464 is chemically very similar and has equal or greater mechanical properties.

Can the sample part be manufactured from C464.

Is it acceptable to submit the sample part manufactured using C464 material?

Answer Question #4: The C464 material is acceptable for the sample parts. The objective is to demonstrate machining capabilities.

Question #5: Since we have been winning both machining and fabrication requirements, do we have to go through the entire process again of turning in sample fab and machined parts to prove we can do the work, or do we only need to present a sample for the composite side, if we decide to try and help out on the composite side of the contract?

Answer Question #5: Reference the following sections of the solicitation:

Section B; CNIN-NOTICE-0001 paragraph 3 and paragraph 6. These two paragraphs explain the procedure and time frame to request a waiver.

Section K; 52.225-25 paragraph (2)(c) Section L; CNIN-L-0002 paragraph a) Product Samples 5). This paragraph references the product sample that may be waived.

Question #6: Isn't this contract basically a machining, fabrication and composite contract?

Answer Question #6: This was question was originally part of question #5. Yes, CLIN 0001 can be categorized as machining and fabrication. Sample part number 925986 is to show proficiency in machining and the purpose of sample part 372299 is to show proficiency in welding components.

Reference Question and Answer #2 above regarding part 372299.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

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

a) The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation requirements, is determined to provide the “best value” to the Government. The “best value” determination will be based on the merits of the offer and the offeror’s capability. The “best value” may not necessarily be the proposal offering the lowest cost, nor receiving the highest technical rating. 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. An offer must be acceptable for the offeror to be eligible for award. OFFERS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS STATED

HEREIN MAY BE DETERMINED UNACCEPTABLE AND MAY BE REJECTED WITHOUT

FURTHER EVALUATION.

b) The evaluation process will consist of two parts. The Government will first conduct a Go/No-Go evaluation of Product Samples IAW with the Go/No-Go Inspection Plan described below. Proposals that have any Product Sample that fails the Go/No-Go Inspection will not be evaluated further or considered for award. For those proposals that have both Product Samples pass the Go/No-Go Inspection, the Government will then conduct an evaluation of the entire written proposal and additional evaluation of Product Samples IAW the requirements of the solicitation for the technical portion of the evaluation.

Proposals will be rated considering the evaluation factors listed below. It should be noted that cost/price does not have a finite numerical weight. Evaluation factors (other than Price) are significantly more important than Price. However, cost to the Government, or Price, is an important factor and should be considered when preparing proposals. The Government reserves the right to award to a lower priced 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.

c) 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 SUBFACTORS

A. Product Sample Evaluation B. Technical Proposal

FACTOR II - PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR III – PRICE

d) Factor I is more important than Factor II. Under Factor I, Sub-factor A through B are listed in descending order of importance. Factor II is more important than Factor III. Factors I and II, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor III. Factor III, Price will not be rated but will be considered in determining the “Best Value” to the Government. The price factor becomes more important as a degree of equality of technical factors increases, or when price is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government.

e) Past Performance information may be evaluated upon receipt prior to the closing date of the solicitation.

STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION:

FACTOR I: TECHNICAL

Subfactor A: Product Sample Evaluation

INSPECTION PLAN FOR PRODUCT SAMPLES, WITH A PRODUCT SAMPLE TO BE BUILT IN

ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWING 925986 REVISION H AND A PRODUCT SAMPLE TO BE BUILT IN

ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWING 372299 REVISION R FOR MACHINED PART SAMPLE DEVELOPMENT

AND/OR DRAWING PACKAGE AFTFAIRING FOR FABRICATED COMPOSITE PART SAMPLE

DEVELOPMENT

1. (“Go/No-Go” element) Every dimension of the Product Samples will be measured for accuracy using Mitutoyo height gauges and/or Mitutoyo calipers as well as measured utilizing the MSSI Premiere 1250 CMM (Coordinate Measuring Machine), in order to inspect compliance with Drawing 925986 Revision H, Drawing 372299 Revision R, and the AFT Fairing drawing/models.

2. The Product Samples will be inspected for compliance with all notes cited in Drawing 925986 Revision H, except for notes 7, 8 and 11 and Drawing 372299 Revision R.

3. All coatings and plating applications on the Product Samples will be visually inspected for compliance with Drawing 925986 Revision H and Drawing 372299 Revision R.

4. Markings on the Product Samples will be inspected for compliance with Drawing 925986 Revision H and Drawing 372299 Revision R.

5. Material certification and plating certification of the Product Samples will be inspected for compliance with Drawing 925986 Revision H, Drawing 372299 Revision R, and the AFT Fairing drawing.

6. The Product Samples will be mated to its next higher assembly as a fit check, to inspect compliance with Drawing 925986 Revision H and Drawing 372299 Revision R.

7. The AFT Fairing product sample will also be inspected per NAVAIR 01-1A-22.

Notes: If any single product sample fails to pass the inspection under #1above, then the offeror’s product samples will be considered unacceptable, not be further evaluated under #’s 2 – 7 above, and the rest of their proposal will not be evaluated. Thus, failure to pass #1 will result in an offer being ineligible for any further evaluation under this procurement and no longer considered for award.

If both product samples pass the inspection under #1, then the offeror’s product samples will be evaluated under #’s 2 – 7, and a evaluated rating determined for Subfactor A. If any discrepancies are found with the offeror’s product sample when inspections #’s 2 – 7 are conducted, these discrepancies will be documented by the Government.

Subfactor B: Technical Proposal

The Government will evaluate the written technical proposals to assess 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 benefit to the Government. The objectives of the evaluation are 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.

FACTOR II: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will assess the past performance of each Offer. 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.

The Government will assess the offeror's past performance in the areas of:

(1) Quality of Product or Service

(2) Schedule

(3) Cost Control

(4) Business Relations

(5) Management of Key Personnel

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

(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.

The Government may solicit relevant information from an Offeror’s customers and business associates; Federal, State and local government agencies and databases; other persons and organizations, and any other sources the Government may choose, including federal databases and in-house knowledge of an Offer’s past performance. 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 Contracting Officer is not responsible for locating or securing any information not furnished with the offer.

The 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.

Past performance is assessed by the Contracting Officer and is assigned adjectival ratings in the evaluation. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation:

The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, and contract type. Each offeror will be given an adjectival rating on past performance relevance: very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant or not relevant.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The Past Performance information will be reviewed to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. Each offeror will be given an adjectival rating on past performance confidence: substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, unknown confidence. Offerors who do not have recent/relevant performance record available to the Contracting Officer will be rated Unknown Confidence (Neutral).

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 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

Evaluation of an Offeror’s price 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. Proposals which are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments, or unrealistically high or low in terms of price, may be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence, or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity of risks of the proposed work and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal. 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. Reference the Pricing Matrix in Section B.

(End of Summary of Changes)