19RGP64_sol_ 0005.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 change the contract length term from 5 years to 3 years and to change the guaranteed contract minimum. Proposals are due by 08 MAY 2020 at 2:00 PM EST. See Summary of Changes.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 30-Apr-2020

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 N0016419RGP64

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

19-Jul-2019

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

30-Apr-2020

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CRANE DIV

K. JACOBSEN (812-854-6343)

BLDG 3373

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:

N0016419RGP64

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 11-Mar-2020 02:00 PM to 08-May-2020 02:00 PM.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0002

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

IAW Statement of Work and MIL-DTL-915/8Length Requirement: 100 ft. minIDIQ Min: 5,000 ft.See below for pricing matrix.

To:

IAW Statement of Work and MIL-DTL-915/8Length Requirement: 100 ft. minEstimated IDIQ Min: $36,000.00 EstimatedSee below for pricing matrix.

CLIN 0004

IAW Statement of Work and MIL-DTL-915/8Length Requirement: 500 ft. minIDIQ Min: 0 ft.See below for pricing matrix

IAW Statement of Work and MIL-DTL-915/8Length Requirement: 500 ft. minEstimated IDIQ Min: $2,300.00 EstimatedSee below for pricing matrix

CLIN 0006

Cable IAW Statement of Work and MIL-DTL-915/48Length Requirement: 300 ft. minIDIQ Min: 0 ft.See below for pricing matrix

Cable IAW Statement of Work and MIL-DTL-915/48Length Requirement: 300 ft. minIDIQ Min: 0See below for pricing matrix

CLIN 0008

IAW Statement of Work and 53711-53X-06-153 Rev - & MIL-DTL-915/8Length Requirement: 200 ft.

multiplesIDIQ Min: 0 ft. See below for pricing matrix.

IAW Statement of Work and 53711-53X-06-153 Rev - & MIL-DTL-915/8Length Requirement: 200 ft.

multiplesEstimated IDIQ Min: $12,000.00 EstimatedSee below for pricing matrix.

CLIN 0010

IAW Statement of Work and MIL-DTL-915/48Length Requirement: 55 ft. multiplesIDIQ Min: 0 ft.See below for

IAW Statement of Work and MIL-DTL-915/48Length Requirement: 55 ft. multiplesIDIQ Min: 0See below for

CLIN 0012

IAW Statement of Work and 53711-7273879Length Requirement: 125 ft. multiplesIDIQ Min: 0 ft.See below for

IAW Statement of Work and 53711-7273879Length Requirement: 125 ft. multiplesEstimated IDIQ Min: $57,000.00 EstimatedSee below for pricing matrix.

CLIN 0014

IAW Statement of Work and 03538-77C721887Length Requirement: 80 ft. multiplesIDIQ Min: 5,000 ft.See below for pricing matrix.

IAW Statement of Work and 03538-77C721887Length Requirement: 80 ft. multiplesEstimated IDIQ Min:

$679,000.00 EstimatedSee below for pricing matrix.

CLIN 0016

IAW Statement of Work and MIL-DTL-915/8Length Requirement: 100 ft. multiplesIDIQ Min: 0 ft.See below for

IAW Statement of Work and MIL-DTL-915/8Length Requirement: 100 ft. multiplesIDIQ Min: 0See below for

CLIN 0018

IAW Statement of Work and 53711-6396316Length Requirement: 115 ft. multiplesIDIQ Min: 0 ft.See below for

IAW Statement of Work and 53711-6396316Length Requirement: 115 ft. multiplesIDIQ Min: 0See below for

CLIN 0020

IAW Statement of Work and 53711-5516428Length Requirement: 100 ft. multiplesIDIQ Min: 0 ft.See below for

IAW Statement of Work and 53711-5516428Length Requirement: 100 ft. multiplesIDIQ Min: 0See below for

CLIN 0022

IAW Statement of Work and MIL-DTL-23020 and MIL-C-23020/4Length Requirement: 200 ft. multiplesIDIQ Min:

0 ft.See below for pricing matrix.

IAW Statement of Work and MIL-DTL-23020 and MIL-C-23020/4Length Requirement: 200 ft. multiplesEstimated IDIQ Min: $53,000.00 EstimatedSee below for pricing matrix.

The following have been modified:

CLIN 0002 PRICING MATRIX

OFFER A

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

OFFER B

CLIN 0004 PRICING MATRIX

CLIN 0006 PRICING MATRIX

CLIN 0008 PRICING MATRIX

CLIN 0010 PRICING MATRIX

CLIN 0012 PRICING MATRIX

CLIN 0014 PRICING MATRIX

CLIN 0016 PRICING MATRIX

CLIN 0018 PRICING MATRIX

CLIN 0020 PRICING MATRIX

CLIN 0022 PRICING MATRIX

IDC CONSTRAINTS

CONTRACT MINIMUM/MAXIMUM QUANTITY AND CONTRACT VALUE

The minimum quantity for all orders issued against this contract shall not be less than the minimum quantitystated in the following table. The contract value for all orders issued against this contract shall not exceed the contract value stated in the following table.

MINIMUM

QUANTITY

MINIMUM

AMOUNT

MAXIMUM

QUANTITY

MAXIMUM

AMOUNT

N/A $839,300 N/A Estimated $5,000,000

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

252.216-7006 ORDERING (MAY 2011)

(a) Any supplies to be furnished under this contract shall be ordered by issuance of delivery orders by the individuals or activities designated in the contract schedule. Such orders may be issued from the effective date of contract through three years from the effective date of contract.

(b) All delivery orders are subject to the terms and conditions of this contract. In the event of conflict between a delivery order or task order and this contract, the contract shall control.

(c)(1) If issued electronically, the order is considered ``issued'' when a copy has been posted to the Electronic Document Access system, and notice has been sent to the Contractor.

(2) If mailed or transmitted by facsimile, a delivery order is considered ``issued'' when the Government deposits the order in the mail or transmits by facsimile. Mailing includes transmittal by U.S. mail or private delivery services.

(End of Clause)

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR AWARD

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

Government intends to evaluate proposals and award either a single or multiple contract(s) without discussions.

Therefore, Offerors are instructed to include their best terms in their initial proposals as described in Section L.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary. Each CLIN(s) will be awarded to the contractor(s) providing the best value for each CLIN at the time of basic contract award.

b) To be eligible for award, Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements for the CLIN(s) which are being proposed, 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.

c) The Government intends to award a contract or contracts to the responsible Offeror(s) 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/price and non-cost/price factors. Accordingly, the Government may accept other than the lowest cost/price proposal where the additional benefits of the higher cost/price proposal merit the additional cost/price. Conversely, the Government may select a lower-cost/price, lower rated proposal if the Government determines that the premium associated with the higher-rated proposal is not justified.

d) 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 importance for the evaluation factors is established as follows:

FACTOR I – TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR III – PRICE

The technical factor will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and a tradeoff, best value determination will be made between the past performance and price factors. In making the best value determination, the Government will consider past performance to be significantly more 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 past performance of competing proposals, under the non-price factors. The government will not award a contract to an Offeror, regardless of its past performance and price unless its technical proposal is evaluated as acceptable.

e) 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 Pre-Award survey is to obtain information not available to the Contracting Officer to make a responsibility determination prior to contract award.

STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION:

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded based on the following evaluation factors:

1. FACTOR I – TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY:

a) A written narrative will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

b) The Government will also review any exceptions taken to the requirements.

c) The following ratings will apply as set forth below.

Note: Offerors will not be considered for award for any CLIN(s) that receive an “Unacceptable” Technical rating .

2. FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE:

Past performance is a measure of the degree to which the Offeror and its subcontractors satisfied its customers in previous relevant contracts and complied with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. The Government will evaluate past performance by determining whether the past performance reference meets the requirement of being performed within the last three (3) years from the proposal due date on page 1. Then, the Government will determine whether the reference is similar in scope, size and complexity when compared to the current tasking requirements identified in the Statement of Work. In addition, the Government will consider the responses received in regards to the Offeror having provided quality services. Past Performance references that reflect projects with a similar scope, size and complexity to efforts described in this solicitation will be considered to have greater importance in the evaluation of this Factor.

There are three (3) aspects to the Past Performance evaluation: Recency, Relevancy (including context of data), and Quality (including general trends in Contractor performance and source of information).

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

a) Recency: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. Per Section L, Factor II, Paragraph (f), Offerors shall provide Past Performance references from the past three (3) years from the proposal due date on page 1.

b) Relevancy: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration is given to those aspects of an Offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. Common aspects of relevancy include scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires compared with recent effort(s) accomplished by the Offeror. Scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities included, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of Key Personnel (for services) and extent of subcontracting/teaming. Relevancy ratings are based on the definitions below:

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.

c) Quality: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the

Offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted 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 process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into a Performance Confidence Assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of Recency, Relevancy, and Quality of performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon Past Performance information.

Performance Confidence Assessment ratings are as follows:

Ratings 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 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.

The Government may use other information available from Government sources, to evaluate an Offeror’s or subcontractors’ past performance. The Government may also consider past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror or subcontractors, including Federal, State, and local Government agencies, Better Business Bureaus, published media and electronic databases, the Government’s Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) data base, and/or personal knowledge. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact and to contact other references than those provided by the Offeror or subcontractors.

3. FACTOR III – PRICE

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, Defense Contract Management Agency, 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.

Price: CLINs 0001 – 0022 pricing will be evaluated for price reasonableness. Price will be evaluated by finding the total evaluated price (TEP) for each CLIN. The TEP for each CLIN will be determined by applying proposed unit prices against estimated ordering quantities for each item over the three year ordering period. The total evaluated prices for each CLIN will then be added to the respective proposed First Article CLIN(s) to determine an overall evaluated price for the proposal. The total evaluated price for each CLIN will be used for the comparison to other technically acceptable offers for a price reasonableness determination. The contracting officer may additionally use any of the other proposal analysis techniques that are described at FAR 15.404-1, as appropriate, to ensure that the final agreed-to-price is fair and reasonable.

Offerors may submit pricing for “Offer B” for each CLIN(s) in accordance with M-209-H001; however, the Government will only be evaluating prices offered for “Offer A” for each CLIN(s) proposed. If an Offeror is determined to be the best value, the Government will select the most favorable price between “Offer A” and “Offer B” for the contract award.

(End of text)

(End of Summary of Changes)