20RJQ74_SOL_0002.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 Section M Evaluation Criteria, specifically (a)(1) GO/NO GO CRITERIA.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Jan-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 N0016420RJQ74

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03-Oct-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

14-Jan-2020

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CRANE DIV

J. ROBERTS (812-854-2433)

BLDG 3373

300 HIGHWAY 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:

N0016420RJQ74

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

BEST VALUE EVALUATION

a) The contract(s) resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that offeror(s) 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.

The evaluation process will consist of two (2) parts; Go/No-Go Criteria evaluation of Product Samples and then full proposal (including Product Samples) evaluation for those offerors whose Product Samples pass the evaluation of the Go/No-Go Criteria listed below.

As part of the technical evaluation, laboratory measurements and field tests will be used to determine product compliance with the performance specifications. An offeror whose proposal that has product samples fail to meet any of the performance specifications Go/ No-Go requirements will be rejected and both the product samples and the remainder of the proposal including the written technical proposals will not be further evaluated or considered for award. The proposal(s) whose product samples pass all Go/No-Go requirements tests will be subjected to an evaluation of the entire proposal in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation.

1. GO/NO-GO CRITERIA

Offerors shall ensure that the twelve (12) identical product samples submitted for the proposed CLIN are functional working units and are the exact units being proposed by the offeror to satisfy the requirements in the solicitation.

Product samples shall be clearly marked to differentiate the individual product samples. Product samples will be evaluated by Government personnel against the performance specification identified in the solicitation. Each offeror will undergo the same tests. Product samples are required to meet all of the PS requirements. If an offeror submits a defective product sample or the product sample malfunctions during testing it will not be returned to the offeror for rework or replacement.

Resubmission of product sample(s) will not be allowed after the closing date of the solicitation. Failure to meet all Go/No-Go criteria submitted will render the offer technically unacceptable, the offer will not be further evaluated and the offer will no longer be considered for award.

Product samples which create a condition that does not allow the product samples to be safely tested at any time during product sample evaluation will be rejected and the written technical proposals will not be further evaluated or considered for award.

Evaluation of the product samples will initially consist of confirming that all product samples meet all Go/No- Go criteria listed below. Product samples that successfully pass the initial evaluation will continue with the full evaluation. Product samples failing one or more of the Go/No-Go requirements or that create a safety hazard to the user shall be rejected and neither the product samples nor the written technical proposals will be further evaluated or considered for award. Offerors shall not take exception to the GO/NO GO Criteria.

The following product specification’s threshold requirements are considered Go/No-Go criteria:

1. Performance Specification Section 3.2 – Major Components (only A through K)

2. Performance Specification Section 3.12.1 through 3.12.2 Scope Mount

2. PROPOSAL EVALUATION

Resubmission of product sample(s) will not be allowed during the Product Sample Evaluation [and any Final Proposal Revision phase]. If negotiations are conducted, final proposal revisions will be required.

Product Samples passing all Go/No Go criteria will be evaluated by NSWC Crane and SOCOM personnel against performance specifications PRF/19/JXQR/171 and the Statement of Work (SOW) identified in this solicitation. The Government may or may not choose to fully evaluate the product samples against all the requirements identified in the Performance Specifications. Written technical evaluation, laboratory measurements and field tests will be used to determine product compliance with the performance specifications. All product samples will be tested to the same specification requirements. The twelve product samples for each system shall be used collectively for evaluation against the specification requirements (i.e. each sample will not necessarily undergo full testing). If any product sample should fail and be unable to undergo further evaluation, then a replacement product sample shall continue testing commencing with the test immediately following the last completed test by the failed product sample (whether successful or not).

In addition to the product samples, the offerors shall submit a written proposal in response to the factors and subfactors described in the solicitation in such detail to allow the Government to evaluate the proposal. Written proposals will be evaluated against the performance specification PRF/19/JXQR/171 and the Statement of Work identified in the solicitation.

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 evaluation factors and associated subfactors for the award decision are listed below:

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 (Technical) and II (Past Performance) (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. The best value determination may result in the Government being willing to pay more for higher technical capability.

Under Factor I (Technical), the Subfactors are listed in descending order of importance, with Subfactor A (Product Sample Capability Evaluation) being significantly more important than Subfactor B (Technical Compliance and Objectives Met), Subfactor C (Management, Facilities, Resources, and Schedule), and Subfactor D (Small Business Participation) individually. Factor II (Past Performance) may be evaluated upon receipt if a proposal is received 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. The best value determination may result in the Government being willing to pay more for higher technical capability.

FACTOR I - TECHNICAL SUBFACTORS

A. Product Sample Capability Evaluation B. Technical Compliance and Objectives Met C. Management, Facilities, Resources, and Schedule D. Small Business Participation

FACTOR II - PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will assess each offeror’s past performance. The assessment will be an unbiased judgment of the recency, relevancy and quality of an Offeror’s past performance.

FACTOR III - PRICE

Price will not be rated, but will be considered in determining the “best value” to the Government. No price evaluation will be done on the estimated maximum contract ceiling amount.

The overall evaluation rating will be at the factor level. Below are the STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION:

FACTOR I: TECHNICAL RATINGS

The technical evaluation will be an assessment of the offeror’s ability to meet the requirements of the solicitation, to include but not be limited to, the performance specification and statement of work. 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.

Each offeror will be evaluated on its capability to perform the requirements and objectives from the performance specification and statement of work based on relevant technical expertise and experience in the proposed functional areas. This shall include the offeror’s demonstration of experience performing the type of work covered by the statement of work, the offeror’s ability to perform the requirements, produce systems and sustain the system.

The product samples will be used to support the technical evaluation in the form of Developmental Testing (DT) and User Assessments (UA). DT will consist of laboratory measurements, and UA will consist of field tests. DT and UA does not intend to do destructive testing; however, the product samples will be tested in accordance with the PRF/19/JXQR/171. Offerors taking exception to a performance specification requirement threshold will not be tested to the performance specification and the exception will be considered a deficiency.

An Offeror lacking appropriate production facilities, production and test equipment, DOD contract management experience, number and expertise of personnel, and/or subcomponent supplier relationships may receive an increased risk assessment that factors into their combined technical/risk rating.

A Technical proposal which exceeds a threshold requirement will be assigned a strength if it is determined that exceeding that threshold requirement provides value to the Government. This is true whether or not there is an associated objective requirement.

A small business participation data form shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section L. Evaluation of an Offeror’s proposal shall be based on the information presented concerning the amount of participation of firms designated as part of the socio-economic programs as described in FAR Part 19. Ratings shall be assigned based on the amount of participation when subcontracting opportunities exist.

The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies.

Adjectival Ratings for Factor I Table 1: 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.

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

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 past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

Past performance is assessed by the Government and is assigned adjectival ratings in the evaluation.

The Government will consider the Offeror's record of conforming to specifications /commercial product descriptions and to standards of good workmanship; the Offeror's adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; the Offeror's record of managing subcontractor delivery and performance;

the Offeror's record of number and type of change orders under similar contracts; the Offeror's reputation for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and, generally, the Offeror's business-like concern for the interests of the customer. Past performance is also a measure of the risk of performance associated with the Offeror.

A record of marginal or unacceptable past performance significantly increases performance risk and may result in a finding that the Offeror is unacceptable and ineligible for award. The assessment of the Offeror's past performance will be used as one means of evaluating the relative capability of the Offeror and other competitors to meet the performance requirements of the proposed contract.

Assessment of past performance will be a subjective assessment based on consideration of the quality of the recent and relevant past performance being evaluated. The Government is seeking to determine whether the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to customer satisfaction and timely delivery of quality goods and services at fair and reasonable prices. This is a matter of judgment. 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.

2. Statements of customer 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 (PPIRS) ratings, other Government databases, and other existing past performance ratings on relevant contracts. In addition, information obtained from other sources, such as past and present customers, cognizant contract administration offices, other Government agencies (including state and local Governments), consumer protection organizations, better business bureaus, and others who may have useful information. The Government will evaluate the recency and relevance of past performance information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Offeror’s performance as well as information on past performance difficulties and how the Offeror corrected the problems.

The Contracting Officer is not responsible for locating or securing any information not furnished with the offer. The Government may, however, utilize all available information, including information not provided by the Offeror, in the past performance evaluation. The Government reserves the right to limit the number of references it decides to contact, to contact references other than those provided by the Offeror, 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.

Offerors will be given an opportunity to address unfavorable reports of past performance to which they have not previously had an opportunity to respond. In particular, recent relevant contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been put in place to prevent the reoccurrence of past performance problems. Prompt actions taken to correct performance problems will be a reflection of management concern for customer satisfaction;

however, such action may not mitigate all negative performance trends.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

Recency. The first 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. For the purposes of this solicitation, recent contracts are defined as those on which performance has been conducted three years prior to the posting date of the solicitation.

Relevance. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

Table 3: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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.

Quality of Products or Services. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. 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 utilizing the confidence ratings in Table 4.

Table 4: Past Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition 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.

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

FACTOR III: COST/PRICE

A Price Proposal shall be submitted for the supplies set forth in Section B this solicitation. The information presented in the Price Proposal will be evaluated by the Government.

Pricing will be evaluated based upon both an examination of the unit pricing proposed at the estimated delivery order quantities per year, multiplied by the offered unit price for that quantity range, all years summed, plus the estimated value of $500,000 for all the PIO Spares CLINs, to arrive at a Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Option year pricing is included in the evaluation.

(b) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)