N0018920Q0187 Amendment 1 Released.docx

N0018920Q0187

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

52.212-1 ADDENDUM

The Government intends to award a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) award as a result of this solicitation in accordance with FAR Part 13. Award will be made to that offeror whose quote is most advantageous to the Government under the selection criteria set forth in this solicitation. The Government intends to evaluate quotes and award based on initial quotes. Therefore, the offeror's initial quote should contain the quoter’s best terms from a technical, past performance and price standpoint.

QUESTIONS:

Offerors may submit questions regarding clarification of solicitation requirements to paul.cofield@navymil. It is requested that all questions be received by 1400 ET 01 April 2020.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSIONS OF QUOTERS:

(1) Quotes shall be submitted electronically ot paul.cofield@navy.mil no later than the due date of the solicitation.

Factor I: Facilities Clearance

The offeror shall provide proof/verification that it possesses a current Secret Facility clearance at time of quote submission as identified in the PWS and attached DD-254. The proof/verification shall be in the form of Defense Security Service verification obtained within 30 days prior to close of solicitation and shall include the following: Cage Code, Facility Name, Physical Location, Facility Clearance Status/Level, Status Date/Issue Date, Safeguarding Level, Authorized Access To, FCL Limitation, Facility Security Officer, Facility Security Officer Phone Number, DSS Field Office, and DSS Field Office Phone Number.

Factor II: Technical

Describe ability for company to provide sharepoint development services in accordance with the PWS.

Factor III: Past Performance

The quoter shall demonstrate relevant past performance or affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant past performance. Relevant past performance is performance under contracts or efforts within the past five years prior to the solicitation closing date. To demonstrate its past performance, the quoter shall identify up to two (2) of its most relevant contracts which meet the recency requirement above. Offerors shall provide a short explanation demonstrating the relevance of the contracts to the requirements of the solicitation.

Factor IV: Price

Completed SF 1449 schedule of pricing

Signed SF 1449 and all amendments

Certification of Reps and Certs if different than SAM registration.

52.212-2 ADDENDUM

The Government intends to award a contract to the responsible quoter whose quotes represents the best value after the evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation. Technical and Past Performance (when combined) are significantly more important than price.

Quotes will be ranked from lowest to highest price.

If the lowest priced offer is evaluated to have a Overall Technical Rating of ‘Acceptable’ and Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating of ‘Satisfactory’, that quote represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that quoter without further consideration of any other quoters. However, if the lowest priced offer is not evaluated to have a Overall Technical Rating of ‘Acceptable’ and ‘Satisfactory Confidence’ Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating, the next-lowest priced quoter will be evaluated. The evaluation process will continue (in order of price from lowest to highest) until a quoter is evaluated to have a Overall Technical Rating of ‘Acceptable’ and ‘Satisfactory Confidence’ Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The Government shall then make an integrated best-value award decision between the quoter rated with a Overall Technical Rating of ‘Acceptable’ and ‘Satisfactory Confidence’ Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating and all lower priced awardable offers. If no quoters are rated with a Overall Technical Rating of ‘Acceptable’ and 'Satisfactory Confidence’ Past Performance Confidence Assessment, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best-value award decision from among the awardable quoters.

Factor I: Facilities Clearance

Factor II: Technical

Factor I+II will be evaluated on an Overall Acceptable/Unacceptable basis on its submission of the proof/verification of its Secret Facilities Clearance and Technical write-up showing ability to meet solicitation requirements in the PWS. This will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis utilizing the Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable ratings in Table 1 below.

Table 1 –Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Table

Factor III: Past Performance

The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to meet the contract’s requirements based on the quality of a demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. These are combined to establish a single performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

Past Performance Recency: Recency is the first aspect of the past performance evaluation and is the time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. Recency is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. For purposes of this solicitation, recent past performance is within the past five years prior to the solicitation closing date. Performance outside of this stated period will not be considered for evaluation purposes.

Past Performance Relevancy: Regarding relevancy, each past performance reference under the offeror’s Past Performance submission will be evaluated to determine its individual scope and magnitude relative to the instant requirement. The following definitions apply to this evaluation:

· Scope: Experience in the areas defined in the PWS.

· Magnitude: The measure of the similarity of the dollar value of actually performed work that exists between the instant requirement’s PWS and the offeror’s referenced contracts during the stated period established by the solicitation.

The relevancy rating assigned from the below Past Performance Relevancy Descriptions will be considered in determining the weight to be given to that reference in the overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment. In determining the rating for the past performance factor, past performance of greater relevancy will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Past Performance Relevancy Descriptions Table

Past Performance Quality: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, including general trends and usefulness of the information, and will incorporate this into the performance confidence assessment. The quality of performance under a past performance reference that that has no relevance to the instant requirement will not be considered in the overall assessment of past performance confidence.

In order to determine the quality of performance, the Government may utilize existing data sources, including the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; communication with points of contact in the offeror’s customer’s organization, which could include private sector requirements and contracts personnel, Administrative Contracting Officers, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) personnel, Procuring Contracting Officers, Contracting Officer’s Representatives, and other Government activity requirements personnel. The Government may verify past performance information. The Government may contact some or all of the references provided, as appropriate, and may collect information through questionnaires, telephone interviews, and existing data sources. The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources, including sources outside of the Government. This information will be used for the evaluation of past performance.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment: The overall assigned rating for past performance will be the Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating, defined in the table below. The assignment of this rating will be based on the overall quality of the recent and relevant past performance and will also consider the source of the information, the context of the data, and general trends in the offeror’s performance.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the past performance factor. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral Confidence.” Although an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance may not be rated favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Government may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating provides better value to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating.

The past performance factor evaluation and past performance confidence assessment rating is separate and distinct from the contracting officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the relative capability of the offeror and other competitors to successfully meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Table

Factor IV: Price Price is evaluted in accordance with FAR Part 13.

Evaluated based on price in the schedule.

Although price is the not the most important evaluation factor, it has the potential to become more significant during the evaluation process. The degree of importance of price will increase with the degree of equality of the quotes in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based. The importance of price will also increase when a quote's price is so significantly high as to diminish the value to the Government that might be gained under the other aspects of the offer. If, at any stage of the evaluation, all quoters are determined to have submitted equal, or virtually equal, non-price quotes, price could become the factor in determining which offerors shall receive the award.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf