19RGP67_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

(1) Provide responses to Industry Questions

(2) Edit Section L, Instructions to Offerors, General Information, paragraph d 2, highlighted in yellow .

(3) Delete from Section L, Instructions to Offerors, General Information, paragraph d, 4 "Three-ring binders are preferred. The pages in the binders shall be easily removed and replaced to facilitate page changes."

(4) Incorporate in Section L that proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall be valid for 120 calendar days, w hich is highlighted in yellow .

The closing date and time remains unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-Jun-2019

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 N0016419RGP67

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Jun-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 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

28-Jun-2019

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CRANE DIV

J. MEYER (812-854-6327)

BLDG 3373

300 HWY 361

CRANE IN 47522

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N0016419RGP67

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS – BEST VALUE TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

The contractor’s proposal shall include the following:

Required Submittal Volume Number

Technical Acceptability – Unclassified Volume I (20-page limit)

Past Performance Summaries & Matrix - Unclassified Volume II (5-page limit for summary) (1-page limit for matrix)

Completed Solicitation including pricing – Unclassified Volume III (No page limit)

Copy of Standard Warranty – Unclassified Volume IV (No page limit)

Small Business Participation Plan (Attachment 4 provided in Section J) Volume V (No page limit)

Small Business Subcontracting Plan (for Large Business Concerns) Volume VI (No page limit)

General Information:

a) Offerors shall submit a list of names and telephone numbers of persons authorized to conduct negotiations.

b) Proposals shall not contain classified information.

c) Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall be valid for 120 calendar days.

d) Delivery & Submission Method

1) Electronic Delivery of Proposals. Electronic submission to Jordyn.Meyer@navy.mil is acceptable.

Timeliness of proposals will be determined in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f) or FAR 52.215- 1(c)(3)(ii)(A) as applicable. Do not send .zip files or other large electronic files via email. Utilization of AMRDEC SAFE, at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/Welcome.aspx , is an acceptable transmission tool. AMRDEC SAFE supports files sizes up to 2GB. If using AMRDEC, submit in sufficient time in order to verify the POC received the notification from AMRDEC by the closing date and time and is able to access the uploaded proposal files.

Any proposal sent by electronic submission must be completely received in the POC's email inbox prior to the time the solicitation closes in order to be timely; therefore, please take into consideration the time the electronic transmission process may take for the POC to actually receive your email when submitting. NSWC Crane will NOT accept facsimile proposals or proposals submitted via Navy Electronic Business Opportunities (NECO).

d) Proposal Format. Format of the proposal volumes shall be as follows:

1) Text size shall be no smaller than what is equivalent to Microsoft Word, Times New Roman, 10 point, uncompressed font.

2) Pages shall be single sided, one and one half spaced, with a minimum of one inch margins on all sides.

Pages shall be dated and numbered sequentially by volume. A cover sheet should be included in each volume, clearly marked as to volume number, title, “original” or copy number, solicitation identification, and the offeror's name.

3) Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used with an explanation for each.

4) Elaborate format, color representations, and bindings are not desirable. Any pages that are changed (as the result of negotiations) should be of a different color (as specified by the Contracting Officer) and have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page and/or circling if changing data in a chart. The offeror shall indicate the new date on revised pages.

5) Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used when necessary to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 by 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume and count as one page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, and schematics; not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs, and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 8 point, Times New Roman.

6) Offerors shall include their best terms in their initial proposals.

I. Technical Acceptability

a) The Technical Acceptability Information shall be submitted as Volume I (20-page limit).

1. Offerors shall not include any pricing within Volume 1.

2. Offerors shall identify any “exceptions” to the Specifications, Drawings, and Statement of Work and state precisely how the offered supplies/services differ from the solicitation documents.

3. Offerors SHALL include the following technical compliance with Specifications/Statement of Work and Schedule:

Specification/Statement of Work: Offerors shall provide a written technical proposal in such detail as to allow the Government to evaluate the proposal based on the following standards:

Standard 1: Offeror shall describe in detail their material selection, certification and control procedures.

Standard 2: Offeror shall describe in detail their manufacturing capabilities. Discussion shall address description of facilities, equipment, and personnel qualifications/experience to be used. The technical proposal shall detail any plans for subcontracting manufacturing processes.

Standard 3: Offeror shall describe in detail their approach to meeting the test/inspection requirements including First Article Testing and production testing. Discussion shall address test/inspection equipment and processes that will be used to satisfy requirements. Discussion shall address whether or not the vendor is First Article certified by Submarine Maintenance Engineering, Planning and Procurement (SUBMEPP) per PPD 802-6337554 or has ever manufactured the item(s) and been deemed First Article acceptable by another activity/agency per PPD 802-6337554.

Standard 4: Offeror shall describe how they will store, package and ship the completed Fiber Optic Cable Assemblies.

Standard 5: Offeror shall describe in detail how they plan to comply with each of the Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs).

Schedule: Offerors shall provide a written proposal delineating their program management approach based on the following standards:

Standard 6: Offeror shall describe in detail their approach to tracking schedules. Offeror shall describe any management tools used to aid in progress tracking. Offeror shall describe how schedule progress will be communicated to the Government. Offeror shall describe their approach to identification, tracking and resolution of manufacturing problems.

Standard 7:

Offeror shall describe in detail their supplier selection system, what factors are considered for selection, and what information is requested from suppliers during pre-award, and key suppliers to be used for this effort. Offeror shall identify proposed key suppliers.

NOTE: Without this information, the Offeror may be deemed unacceptable and may not be considered for further evaluation.

b) Offerors shall enable Government evaluators to thoroughly evaluate and determine if the proposal will meet the requirements.

c) Offerors shall be specific, detailed, and complete to clearly and fully demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough knowledge and understanding of the requirements and has valid and practical solutions to technical problems.

d) Offerors shall not paraphrase the specifications/Statement of Work or attest that "standard procedures will be employed.” This is inadequate to demonstrate how the proposal complies with the requirements of the specification/Statement of Work.

II. Past Performance

a) The Past Performance portion of the proposal shall be submitted as a part of Volume II.

b) Offerors shall provide a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) past performance references on prior contracts that are recent and relevant to this requirement.

c) Offerors shall contact past performance references directly and request that they complete and submit the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) provided as an attachment before the closing date and time in Block 9 of Page 1 of the Solicitation. Under no circumstances shall the completed PPQs be sent to or by the proposing Offerors. Any information provided by the Offeror’s references is subject to verification/validation by the Government during the evaluation process. In the event references are not received by the close of the solicitation, the Government may make contact and follow up with the listed references.

d) Offeror shall provide a one (1) page matrix identifying the following information for each of the PPQs sent out:

1) Organization/Customer

2) Brief Description

3) Contract Number

4) Telephone & E-mail of Organization/Customer Point of Contact (POC)

Proposals must prove PPQs have been sent to each POC; failure to send the PPQ to each POC may result in exclusion of the offeror’s proposal from consideration for award. The offeror shall exert its best efforts to ensure that at least two POCs per relevant contract submit a completed PPQ directly to the Government.

e) Offerors should include a discussion of any significant achievements and explain any rectification of Past Performance problems that are relevant to the proposed efforts.

f) For the purposes of this solicitation, recent contracts are defined as those on which performance occurred during the last three (3) years from the proposal due date on page 1. In determining relevancy, the offeror should consider the type and value of the contract, and the type of requirement compared to this solicited requirement. Offerors should also consider the level or amount of effort.

Offerors must detail (if using the “related technology” as a reference) how the “related technology” is applicable to the solicited effort. Should the offerors not explain how the related technology is applicable, the reference may not be considered relevant. If an offeror has no current or relevant past performance information, they should so state that in this volume.

g) Each offeror shall submit present and past performance information for itself on projects of similar size, scope, and technical complexity. The Offerors may choose to submit present and past performance information for major proposed subcontractors, team members, and/or joint venture partners that have experience in projects of similar size, scope, and technical complexity with its proposal. The total number of past performance references for each offeror shall not exceed five (including any references submitted by subcontractors, team members and/or joint ventures). The offeror may submit performance on classified programs as long as that information can be verified in an unclassified manner. If the offeror intends to submit in this manner the information that is classified (customer, contract number, etc.) should be marked “reserved” and the description/write up of the work performed shall remain unclassified. If the offeror cannot describe what work was accomplished in an unclassified manner they cannot submit that program for evaluation. Offerors are notified that the Government will use the data provided in this volume that is determined to be current and relevant to the effort at hand and data obtained from other sources in the development of performance risk assessments.

III. Solicitation/Pricing

a) Offerors shall submit a list of names and telephone numbers of persons authorized to conduct negotiations in a cover letter.

b) Offerors shall submit a completed and signed solicitation package, with all representations and certifications executed within Section “K.”

c) Offerors shall submit unit prices for each item listed in Section “B.” Completion of unit pricing matrices is required.

d) The prices shall include all shipping and be proposed f.o.b. destination.

IV. Standard Warranty

a) Offerors shall provide a copy of any Standard Warranty being proposed and shall be provided as Volume

IV.

V. Small Business Participation Plan

a) The Extent of Participation by Small Business Documentation portion of the proposal shall be submitted as a part of Volume V.

b) In accordance with FAR 15.304, it is the intent of the Government to encourage participation of small businesses whenever practicable. Describe the extent to which your company has identified and committed to provide for participation by small, small and disadvantaged businesses (SDB), woman-owned businesses (WOB), veteran owned small business and service-disabled veteran owned small business, historically black colleges and universities, or other minority institutions for the performance of this effort. ALL offerors shall provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the tasks assigned the selected subcontractors are meaningful in the sense that they will be performing functions important to the overall success of the program and also broaden the subcontractor's technical capability. ALL Offerors shall describe their approach for enhancing small business subcontractor's technical capability. Of special interest is the amount and type of work to be performed by the subcontractors. Offerors shall explain how you, as the Offeror, believe the proposed approach and plan for use of SB is realistic for this procurement.

c) Submission shall be separate from subcontracting plans to be submitted by large businesses pursuant to

FAR 52.219-9.

VI. Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Business Concerns)

a) Required IAW FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003.

b) Large business concerns are required to submit a subcontracting plan and show compliance with all

Government subcontracting regulations. The extent of participation of small business in performance of the contract shall be evaluated in accordance with DFARS 215.304. The Extent of Participation by Small Business Documentation Small portion of the proposal will be evaluated, but will not be evaluated as a separate factor or subfactor. Small Business Participation will not be rated, but will be considered in determining the “best value” to the Government.

EXCEPTIONS

Offerors are not encouraged to take exceptions to this solicitation. Any exceptions taken to the terms and conditions of this solicitation shall be explained in detail and set forth in a cover letter. Offerors are to detail the particular section, clause paragraph and page to which they are taking exception. The Government is not required to concur with any exceptions, and Offerors are placed on notice that exceptions, depending on their significance, may result in an offer being determined unacceptable.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

BEST VALUE DETERMINATION

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. CLINS 1000/1001, 2000/2001 and 3000 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, 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 relative 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.

f) In accordance with FAR 15.304, it is the intent of the Government to encourage participation of small businesses whenever practicable. Offerors shall describe the extent to which their company has identified and committed to provide for participation by small, small and disadvantaged businesses (SDB), woman-owned businesses (WOB), veteran owned small business and service-disabled veteran owned small business, historically black colleges and universities, or other minority institutions for the performance of this effort.

ALL Offerors shall provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the tasks assigned the selected subcontractors are meaningful in the sense that they will be performing functions important to the overall success of the program and also broaden the subcontractor's technical capability. ALL Offerors shall describe their approach for enhancing small business subcontractor's technical capability. Of special interest is the amount and type of work to be performed by the subcontractors. Offerors shall explain how they, as the Offeror, believe the proposed approach and plan for use of SB is realistic for this procurement. Offerors will be evaluated and determined either "acceptable" or "unacceptable." Large business concerns are required to submit a subcontracting plan and show compliance with all Government subcontracting regulations. The extent of participation of small business in performance of the contract shall be evaluated in accordance with DFARS 215.304.

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: If an Offeror receives an “Unacceptable” Technical rating the Government maynot evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance as the Offeror may not be considered for award.

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).

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

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.

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 1001 and 2001pricing 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 five year ordering period to the Government estimate. The total evaluated prices for each CLIN will then be added to the respective proposed First Article CLINs: 1000, 2000 and 3000 to determine an overall evaluated price for the proposal. The total evaluated price for each CLIN will be used for the comparison to other offers in the competitive range 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.

(End of text)

(End of Summary of Changes)

The following items are applicable to this modification:

INDUSTRY QUESTIONS

1. Question:

Does the Government have an anticipated Award date?

1. Response:

30 September 2019

2. Question:

Are proposals to be submitted electronically as described in the Delivery and Submission section or hard copy/bound as described in the proposal format section?

2. Response:

Proposals are to be submitted electronically to Jordyn.meyer@navy.mil. Section L is updated with this amendment, accordingly.

3. Question:

Would the Government consider a two week extension?

3. Response:

The Government will not consider a two week extension at this time.

4. Question:

If a contract has been rated in CPARs, is it necessary to submit a PPQ?

4. Response:

Yes, it is necessary to submit a PPQ.

5. Question:

What would the Government consider as proof that the PPQ’s were submitted to each POC?

5. Response:

The proof is the one page matrix with the information identifying who the PPQ’s were sent to.

6. Question:

Does the Government have an estimated start and end date of the 5-year IDIQ ordering period?

6. Response:

30 September 2019 – 29 September 2024

7. Question:

For proposal purposes, should Offerors assume that first article testing will be required?

7. Response:

Yes

8. Question:

If the Offeror wishes to request a first article testing waiver, in what volume should clauses C-209-H003 and M- 209-H001 be located?

8. Response:

Volume III, The Completed Solicitation

9. Question:

What is the validity date of the proposal?

9. Response:

Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall be valid for 120 calendar days.

10. Question:

Can the Government provide the estimated ordering quantities for each item over the five year ordering period, which the Government intends to use in making the TEP calculation?

10. Response:

The estimated ordering quantities are internal to the Government and will not be provided at this time.

11. Question:

Is the compound number “E684” correct on Drawing 8322968 Rev A?

11. Response:

The Government is researching and will provide a response in a forthcoming Amendment.

12. Question:

Is the application for Drawing 8322968 Rev A, Sheet 2, Note 23, Grade A or Grade B?

12. Response:

Grade A

13. Question:

There are missing dimensions for the electrical contact. There is no detail for overall diameter, height of knurl and for the profile of the solder cup feature.

13. Response:

The Government is researching and will provide a response in a forthcoming Amendment.