19RWM15_sol_0004.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 revise the solicitation requirements to allow for single or multiple aw ards. Section L - Proposal Instructions has been revised to allow offerors to propose on as few as one (1) CLIN or any combination of CLINs up to and including all four (4) CLINs. Section M - Prooposal Evaluation language has been revised accordingly to incorporate this revision. The contract CLIN minimum / maximum quantities have been revised as show n on page 2 of this amendment. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 10

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 04-Dec-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 N0016419RWM15

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Oct-2018

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 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-Dec-2018

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CRANE DIV

J. JOHNSON (812-854-5965)

BDLG 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:

N0016419RWM15

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

The following have been modified:

IDC CONSTRAINTS

CONTRACT MINIMUM/MAXIMUM QUANTITY AND CONTRACT VALUE

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

CLIN

MINIMUM

QUANTITY

MINIMUM

AMOUNT

MAXIMUM

QUANTITY

MAXIMUM

AMOUNT

150 $

1 $

1 $

0004 1 $

CLIN DELIVERY/TASK ORDER MINIMUM/MAXIMUM QUANTITY AND CLIN ORDER VALUE

The minimum quantity and order value for the given Delivery/Task Order issued for this CLIN shall not be less than the minimum quantity and order value stated in the following table. The maximum quantity and order value for the given Delivery/Task Order issued for this CLIN shall not exceed the maximum quantity and order value stated in the following table.

CLIN

MINIMUM

QUANTITY

MINIMUM

AMOUNT

MAXIMUM

QUANTITY

MAXIMUM

AMOUNT

0001 6

0002 1 $

0003 1 $

0004 1 $

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been added by full text:

52.216-27 SINGLE OR MULTIPLE AWARDS. (OCT 1995)

The Government may elect to award a single delivery order contract or task order contract or to award multiple delivery order contracts or task order contracts for the same or similar supplies or services to two or more sources under this solicitation.

(End of provision)

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

The contractor’s proposal shall include the following:

Required Submittal Volume Number

Technical Proposal - 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

Copy of Any Standard Warranty Being Proposed in accordance HQ-C-2- 0024 in Section C - Unclassified

Volume IV

General Information:

a) Delivery & Submission Method

1) Mailed or Commercial Delivery of Proposals. Mailed or commercially delivered hard or soft copy proposals shall be sent to the address in Block 7 on Page 1 of the Solicitation and shall be received by the date and time in Block 9 on Page 1 of the solicitation. Please provide shipping information to the Contract Specialist at joseph.m.johnson5@navy.mil if a hard copy is being sent.

If a hard copy proposal is submitted, a soft copy of the proposal shall also be provided on CD- ROMs/DVDs, read-only memory. Utilization of Microsoft Office products is preferred.

2) Electronic Delivery of Proposals. Electronic submission is not acceptable.

b) 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 bound in each book, 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. Three-ring binders are preferred. The pages in the binders shall be easily removed and replaced to facilitate page changes. 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. Tables, charts, graphs and figures used, if any, will not be counted in the page limitations assigned to each volume

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

I. Technical Proposal

a) The Technical Proposal shall be submitted as Volume I.

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

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:

FACTOR I – TECHNICAL

Offeror shall provide a written technical proposal (20 page limit) in such detail as to allow the Government to evaluate the proposal. The proposal shall clearly demonstrate the offeror’s capabilities to inspect, test and recharge the cylinders per the applicable Statement of Work.

SUBFACTOR A - WRITTEN TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE WITH STATEMENT OF WORK

Standard 1:

Offeror shall describe in detail their current hydrostatic testing certification status.

Standard 2:

Offeror shall describe in detail their test, inspect, refill capabilities. Discussion shall address description of facilities, equipment, and personnel qualifications/experience.

Standard 3:

Offeror shall describe in detail their approach to meeting the test/inspection requirements detailed in the Statement of Work including and, if applicable, proof of any previous testing qualification approvals for the MK 59 cylinders. Discussion shall address equipment and facilities.

SUBFACTOR B - COMPLIANCE WITH DELIVERY SCHEDULE

Standard 4:

Offeror shall describe in detail their approach to meeting the required delivery schedule and tracking schedules. Offeror shall describe how they will track schedules, identify problems and resolution and customer/supplier communication. 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 testing problems.

Standard 5:

Offeror shall describe in detail their supplier selection system, what factors are considered for selection, and what information is requested from suppliers during preaward. Offer shall identify proposed key suppliers.

NOTE: Without this information, the Offeror may be deemed technically 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. Offerors' references may include prior contracts of major subcontractors, team members and/or joint ventures, if applicable and desired, so long as the total number of reference does not exceed five in number.

c) Offerors are responsible for contacting their past performance references directly and ensuring that those references complete and SUBMIT THEIR RESPECTIVE PPQ FORM DIRECTLY TO THE GOVERNMENT at joseph.m.johnson5@navy.mil so it is RECEIVED before the date and time set for closing 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, at its descretion, may or may not attempt to 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 within a three (3) year period prior to the solicitation’s closing date. Relevant prior contracts are defined as contracts dealing with work that is the same or similar to the work under this solicitation in terms of its size, scope, and complexity. 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. Only past performance dealing with the same or similar work noted herein in terms of size, scope, complexity will be considered relevant. 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 a written narrative not to exceed five (5) pages in length describing 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) All pricing information, along with the completed Solicitation package, shall be submitted as

Volume III.

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

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

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

e) Section B contains contract line item numbers (CLINs) for four (4) separate line items. Offerors may propose on as few as one (1) CLIN or any combination of CLINs up to and including all four (4) CLINs. For each CLIN proposed, the offeror shall propose the prices as separate unit prices for each line listed. 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 per HQ-C-2-0024 in section

C as Volume IV.

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.

ALTERNATE PROPOSALS

Offers may submit more than one proposal, each of which must satisfy the mandatory requirements of the solicitation, including any Benchmark Tests, in order to be considered. As a minimum, one of the proposals submitted must be complete. The alternate proposal(s) may be in an abbreviated form following the same section format, but providing only those sections which differ in any way from those contained in the original proposal.

Each proposal will include cost tables indicating the complete range of pricing options. In the case of price/cost options for a given configuration, an alternate proposal will not be required. If alternate proposals are submitted, such alternatives will be clearly labeled and identified on the cover page of each separate document. The reason for each alternate and its comparative benefits shall be explained. Each proposal submitted will be evaluated on its own merits.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PROPOSAL EVALUATION

a) The Government may elect to award a single delivery order contract or to award multiple delivery order contracts for the same or similar supplies to two or more sources under this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to award multiple contracts if found to be in the best interest of the Government per FAR 16.504(c)(1)(i). A contract for CLINs 0001 – 0004 will be awarded to the contractor providing the “best value” for each individual CLIN at the time of basic contract award. IAW the ordering instructions found herein and FAR 16.505(b)(1) unless an exception IAW FAR 16.505(b)(2) applies.

b) 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.

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 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. Technical Compliance with the SOW B. Compliance with Delivery Schedule

FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR III – PRICE

e) Factor I (Technical) is more important than Factor II (Past Performance) and Factor III (Price). Factor II (Past

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

f) Under Factor I, Subfactor A is more important than Subfactor B. Under Factor II, past Performance information may be evaluated upon receipt prior to the closing date of the solicitation. Factor III, Price, will not be rated, but will be considered in determining the “best value” to the Government.

STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION:

FACTOR I: TECHNICAL

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

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

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

Adjectival Ratings for Factor I and Associated Subfactors A-B:

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.

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.

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

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

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 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 key/principal employees, as either a prime- or sub-contractor.

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

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation:

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, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. 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 (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

Proposals will be evaluated for price reasonableness.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Pricing will be evaluated based upon estimated delivery order quantities per year, multiplied by the offered price for that quantity range, all years summed for CLINs 0001-0004 to arrive at a TEP.

(End of Summary of Changes)