19RJR74_SOL_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 reason for this Amendment is to address industry questions, correct the format of paragraphs d), e), & f) under Standards for Evaluation in "Evaluation Criteria", replace the Past Performance Questionnaire (see Attachment 1), and to remove CLIN HQ E-1-0003. All other terms and 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 04-Apr-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 N0016419RJR74

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-Mar-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

04-Apr-2019

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CRANE DIV

E. MAGNI (812-854-8697)

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:

N0016419RJR74

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001

Questions from Industry:

QUESTION:

1. Page 18 specifies inspection and acceptance at origin for items 0001-0014, which is in conflict with page 19 specifying inspection and accpetance at destination for items 0003-0015.

ANSWER: Clause HQ E-1-0003 has been deleted from the solicitation.

QUESTION:

2. Drawing 7350926 has a flame spread index callout of not greater than 40. The foam industry has worked on this requirement with the United States Government in the past. The note should be removed.

ANSWER: Note has been deleted.

QUESTION:

3. Drawing 7546766. Request change to overall length of 3.50 +/- .01.

ANSWER: Concur, this dimension change is acceptable.

QUESTION:

4. Drawing 8502184. Request change to thickness from 0.040” to match standard thickness of 0.080”.

ANSWER: Concur, standard commercial item dimension of 0.080” is acceptable.

QUESTION:

5. OES-DTL-0072 has the following performance characteristics, which has been requested be changed for consistency across multiple Navy Programs:

5a. Shock tube assembly interface strength from 20 +/- 1 lb to 18 +/- 1 lb.

5b. Temperature from +160 to +140 5c. Temperature from -65 to -40

ANSWER: The values listed in 5a, 5b, and 5c are all consistent with those used for other very similar shock tube programs as specified in specification OES-PRF-0105 and are acceptable for the MK 150 as well.

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

The following have been deleted:

HQ E-1-0003 INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE LANGUAGE OF

F.O.B. DESTINATION DELIVERIES

OCT 2003

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

BEST VALUE EVALUATION

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) 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

c) Proposals will be rated and ranked 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.

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 SUBFACTORS

A. Product Sample Evaluation B. Written Technical Proposal C. Delivery/Production Schedule

FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR III – PRICE

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

f) Under Factor I, Subfactors A and B are of equal importance. Subfactors A and B are equally more important than Subfactor C. Subfactors are listed in order of importance. 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 and drawings. The evaluation will also consider the successful application of Government and industry standards and best practices and innovative approaches that add value to the project/program and benefit 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.

Submitted contractor 's data and test results of product samples will be evaluated against the performance requirements in specifications OES-PRF-0105E & OES-DTL-0072C and associated drawings. Offerors that fail to meet the initial evaluation may not be given further consideration/evaluation for award.

a) Product samples will be evaluated by Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Crane personnel against the performance specification and drawing requirements identified in the solicitation. The product samples, except the inert model, shall be of identical configuration and failure to provide product samples in the quantities listed above will cause that proposal to be eliminated from further consideration for award.

b) Evaluation of the product samples (does not include the inert model) will initially consist of confirming that the product samples meet the Go/No-Go criteria of the following:

MK 150 MOD 0 Product Samples 53711-7350905

Note 2 electrostatic requirements Note 8 primer requirements Pyrotechnic Lead diameter

MK 164 MOD 0 Product Samples

53711-8324694

Note 3 electrstatic requirements Note 4 pyrotechnic lead no flash requirement Note 16 primer requirement Pyrotechnic lead length Pyrotechnic lead diamter (M102)

c) Product samples that successfully pass the initial Go/No-Go evaluation will continue with the full evaluation. However, if any of the product samples fail any portion of the Go/No- Go evaluation, the Government has the right to clarify the test results with the offeror to determine why the specific product sample failed the Go/No-Go requirements, in accordance with FAR 15.306(b)(2). Based on the offeror’s response, the Government will determine whether the offeror’s proposal may proceed to full evaluation. Product samples that fail the Go/No-Go requirements might receive no further consideration for award, and the evaluation of that offer will cease.

Adjectival Ratings for Factor I

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Technical Risk will be considered during the evaluation. Technical Risk is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance , the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

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.

Past Performance relative to this requirement will be assessed by considering aspects such as the following;

however, these do not constitute separately evaluated subfactors:

(1) Quality of Product or Service

(2) Timeliness of performance

(3) Small Business Subcontract Plan Adherence IAW FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9 as applicable.

(4) 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

(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 solicit information from an offeror’s customers and business associates; Federal, state and local government agencies and databases; and from other persons and organizations. 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 employees, as either a prime- or sub-contractor.

Past performance is assigned adjectival ratings in the evaluation. There are three 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 similar 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.

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.

Neutral 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.

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.

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 will gather information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii) and DFARS 215.305(a)(2). The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

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

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. Proposals which are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments, or unrealistically high or low in terms of cost/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.

Price: CLINs 0003-0014 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 ten (10) year ordering period. The total evaluated prices for each CLIN will then be added to the First Article totals (CLIN 0001 & 0002) to determine an overall evaluated price for the proposal. The overall evaluated price 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 Summary of Changes)