N0018922Q0174 AMENDMENT 3.pdf

N4658122RC00GAD

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 provide the quantities per trip types on page 71 of the solicitation under addendum clause 52.212-1.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 09-Jun-2022

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 N0018922Q0174

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-May-2022

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

09-Jun-2022

CODE

NAVSUP FLC NORFOLK CONTRACTING

NORFOLK OFFICE

ATTN: I ELEY

1968 GILBERT STREET STE 600

NORFOLK VA 23511

N00189 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N0018922Q0174

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1

SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

I. GENERAL

Offerors are required to submit their proposals in two (2) separate volumes as follows:

Volume I: Non-Price Proposal

Factor I – Technical Approach

Factor II – Past Performance

Volume II: Factor III - Price Proposal

Volume I: Non-Price Proposal

Factor I - Technical Approach

This submission shall contain the following portion of the proposal, to include all data and information required for the evaluation of the below mentioned factor, excluding any reference to the pricing aspects of each offer.

The offeror shall provide a performance approach that will successfully accomplish the requirements of the solicitation, including the PWS. The Vendor shall demonstrate an understanding of and capability to meet all of the requirements, specifically the ones described in PWS, Sections 3.0- Work Requirements and 4.0- Water Taxi Requirements. The

Vendor’s approach shall demonstrate methodology for ensuring personnel with the required experience, background, and qualifications are provided and include the approach to ensure qualifications remain current for all contractor personnel engaged in the effort.

***The Technical Approach is limited to 20 pages***

Factor II – Past Performance

The Offeror 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 that is the same as or similar to, the scope and magnitude of the work described by this solicitation.

To demonstrate its past performance, the Offeror shall identify up to three (3) of its most relevant contracts performed within five (5) years of the solicitation issuance date. Those contracts must also reflect one (1) year of completed performance by the closing date of the solicitation. Offerors shall provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the relevance of the contracts to the requirements of the solicitation.

For purposes of this solicitation, a contract is defined as a single contract or a single task order placed under an ID/IQ contract, a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), or a Federal

Supply Schedule. Offerors shall not submit the IDIQ contract, FSS contract, or BPA itself as a reference. Offerors may submit a combination of no more than three (3) delivery orders (DOs), task orders (TOs), technical direction letters (TDLs), and/or technical area tasks (TATs) placed under an ID/IQ or BPA as one of the three examples of past performance. Such a combination must also meet the requirements stated above: each individual example in the combination must have been performed within five (5) years of the solicitation issuance date and demonstrate at least one (1) year of completed performance by the closing date of the solicitation. If a combination of DOs, TOs, TDLs and or TATs are used as a past performance example, the Offeror shall state the specific experience claimed, period of performance, and dollar value of each. A Past Performance example that does not provide the level of detail required may not be evaluated. No more than one combination of

DOs, TOs, TDLs and or TATs is permitted in the past performance submittal. One (1) year of completed performance is defined as twelve (12) consecutive months of performance.

References with less than twelve (12) consecutive months of service will not be considered.

If a proposed subcontractor’s past performance is provided as part of the three (3) of its most relevant contracts or efforts, the percentage and type of work to be done by the subcontractor on the solicitation requirement must be stated. The Offeror’s submittal shall also detail clearly the aspects of the work in the solicitation that the subcontractor is proposed to perform. A Past Performance example which does not detail clearly the aspects of the work in the solicitation that the subcontractor is proposed to perform may not be evaluated.

If the prime Offeror or intended subcontractor/partner submits a past performance example in which it served as a subcontractor, the prime/sub/partner shall detail clearly the work that it performed and the magnitude (dollar value) of that subcontracted work only. A Past

Performance example that does not differentiate between the overall contract effort and the subcontractor effort may not be evaluated.

The past performance of subcontractors who will be performing major or critical aspects of the solicitation will be considered as highly as a prime contractor’s past performance.

Failure of Offerors to provide the required information and level of specificity may result in the contract reference not being evaluated. [With respect to joint ventures, the procuring activity will consider work done individually by each member of the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. Joint venture references must meet the temporal requirements described in section L (within five years and a year of completed performance). Additionally, if a joint venture member submits a past performance reference, the joint venture member shall detail clearly the work that it performed in that effort and the magnitude (dollar value) of that work. A reference that does not differentiate between the overall contract effort and the joint venture member’s effort for that reference may not be evaluated. The past performance of a joint venture member who will be performing major or critical aspects of the solicitation will be considered as highly as the joint venture’s past performance.]

The Offeror shall complete a “Past Performance Information Form” for each reference submitted. The form is an attachment to the solicitation.

In addition to the information requested above, Offerors shall contact their past performance references and request that each reference complete the Past Performance Report Form and e-mail the completed survey form directly to Ida Eley at ida.l.eley.civ@us.navy.mil and

Richard A. Mateljan at richard.a.mateljan.civ@us.navy.mil by the DUE DATE OF

THIS SOLICITATION. The Government reserves the right to consider past performance report forms received after the due date of the solicitation and to contact references for verification or additional information.

***The Past Performance submission is limited to 12 pages***

Volume II: Price Proposal

Factor III – Price Proposal

This volume shall include completed solicitation documents and additional supporting documentation described below:

RFP Section “Schedule of Supplies/Services” completed by the Offeror with the total base and option task order prices inclusive of the 6-month option period.

When calculating the total costs, use an annual quantity of 200 trips for under 25 passengers and a quantity of 50 trips for the over 25 passengers and under 50 passengers.

Separate pricing information shall be submitted for each year of the services, including 6-month option period (FAR 52.217-8) as well as a total summary for all years of service.

Unless completed in System for Award Management (SAM), “Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors” certification completed by the

Offeror.

mailto:ida.l.eley.civ@us.navy.mil

All supplemental information to support the proposed price including labor mix and level of effort (LOE) by labor category, and fully burdened per hour labor rates, to include subcontractor’s supplemental pricing information in the same format.

The Offeror shall include all information that led to the formation of escalation pricing as part of the pricing proposal, inclusive of the labor category breakdown and all applicable rates.

A completed and signed page 1 of the most current version of the solicitation.

For the purposes of Offeror’s proposal, all rates should be proposed at the site indicated within the PWS.

The completion and submission of the above items will constitute a proposal and will indicate the Offeror’s unconditional assent to the terms and conditions of this RFP and any attachments and/or exhibits hereto. All price and price supporting information shall be contained in the price proposal. No price or pricing information shall be included in any other volume including cover letters. Offerors are responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate their price proposal.

The proposal shall be valid for 180 days from solicitation closing date.

IMPORTANT NOTES:

1. In order to be eligible for award, the Offeror shall be a Small Business under

NAICS 483212.

2. Offerors shall respond to all requirements of the solicitation document. Offerors are cautioned not to alter the solicitation. Hand-carried proposals are not authorized and will not be accepted. Each page of each copy shall be affixed with the following legend:

Source Selection Information

See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

3. In the event any person who is not a bona fide employee of the Offeror participated in the creation, formulation, or writing of any portion of the proposal, a certificate to this effect shall be included in the proposal which shall be signed by an officer of the

Offeror. Such certificates shall identify the name of the person who is not a bona fide employee, that person’s employment capacity, the name of the person’s firm, the relationship of that firm to the Offeror, and the portion of the Proposal in which the person participated.

4. In order to ensure that all questions submitted by potential Offerors are answered prior to the solicitation closing date, questions concerning the solicitation should be submitted via directly to Ida Eley at ida.l.eley.civ@us.navy.mil and Richard A.

Mateljan at richard.a.mateljan.civ@us.navy.mil NO LATER THAN 12:00PM, EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME (EDT), on 7 June 2022. The Government reserves the right not to respond to any questions received concerning this solicitation after the questions receipt date above. Accordingly, Offerors are encouraged to carefully review all solicitation requirements and submit questions to the Government early in the proposal timeframe.

5. Proposals are to be submitted electronically via email to directly to Ida Eley at ida.l.eley.civ@us.navy.mil and Richard A. Mateljan at richard.a.mateljan.civ@us.navy.mil in the format and quantities identified within the Solicitation. NO HARDCOPIES WILL BE ACCEPTED. All electronic files and versions of Offeror’s Proposals shall be compatible with the current release of

Adobe Acrobat and Microsoft Office Suite version 2010.

6. Proposals are due no later than the date and time stated within the solicitation.

II. REQUIREMENTS FOR FORMAT OF PROPOSAL CONTENT:

1. Introduction and Purpose: This section specifies the format that the Offeror shall use in this RFP. The intent is not to restrict the Offerors in the manner in which they will perform their work but rather to ensure a certain degree of uniformity in the format of the responses for evaluation purposes.

2. Each attachment should contain the following items in addition to the other information required by this solicitation:

Cover: The cover should indicate the following:

Title of the Proposal

Volume Number (I or II)

Factor (I, II, III)

RFP Number

Name and address of Offeror, point of contact information (name, phone number, and email address), CAGE code, DUNS number, and applicable tax identification number (TIN)

Proposal validity period for 180 days from solicitation closing

Table of Contents: The table of contents should provide sufficient detail as to allow the important elements to be easily located.

3. Requirements for Style: Each Offeror shall submit a proposal that clearly and concisely describes and defines the Offeror’s response to the requirements contained in the solicitation. Unnecessary elaboration or other presentations beyond that, sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are not desired. Elaborate artwork, expensive paper or bindings, and expensive visual or other presentation aids are neither necessary nor desired. The proposal shall contain all the pertinent information in sufficient detail in the one area of the proposal where it contributes most critically to the discussion of the same information. When necessary, Offerors shall refer to the initial discussion and identify its location within the submitted proposal.

Proposal Page Limitations:

Title Proposal Quantities Page Limit*

Volume I: Factor I – Technical Approach 1 Electronic Submission 20 Pages

Volume I: Factor II – Past Performance 1 Electronic Submission 12 Pages

Volume II: Factor III - Price Proposal 1 Electronic Submission No Limitation

All submissions and attachments shall be in Microsoft Office Suite Format. Submissions are page limited to the maximum number of pages as defined above. These page limitations are inclusive of the executive summary and any charts, diagrams, and/or other graphics.

Graphics (including tables) in the proposal may use an alternative font with 8 point size type or larger. Each “page” is defined as one sheet, 8 ½ “ x 11”, with at least one inch margins on all sides, using a font with a point size of 12 or greater (e.g., "Times New Roman" style with

12 point font). Lines shall, at a minimum, be selected as single-spaced in Microsoft Word with Microsoft Word Normal character spacing. Pages shall be consecutively numbered. Multiple pages, double pages, two-sided pages, or foldouts will count as an equivalent number of 8 ½" x 11" pages. The Offeror is permitted to submit no more than one page for each of the following, which will not be included in the page count: a cover sheet, list of tables, list of figures, compliance matrix, table of contents, tabs, and dividers. The

Offeror shall be responsible for ensuring that their electronic proposals are virus free. Pages submitted in excess of the page limitation described above will NOT be evaluated.

The Price Proposal is not page limited; however, the Price proposal is to be strictly limited to price information and completed solicitation documents as described in the General Section at the beginning of this text.

* Page limits represent the maximum pages the Government will evaluate and are not construed as de facto standards for the amount of material expected in the proposal.

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (NOV

2021)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

The Government intends to award a Firm Fixed Price Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity

(IDIQ) contract as a result of this solicitation in accordance with FAR 16.5. Award will be made to that Offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors set forth in the solicitation. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a task order based on initial proposals. Each offeror’s proposal shall be in the form prescribed by, and shall contain a response to, each of the areas identified in the Section L solicitation provision entitled “Instructions to Offerors.” This source selection will be conducted in accordance with

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items and FAR Part

15, Contracting by Negotiation, FAR Subpart 16.5, Indefinite Delivery Contracts. These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov/content/regulations. The

Government reserves the right to award a Firm Fixed Price IDIQ contract to other than the lowest priced Offeror; award a firm fixed priced IDIQ contract without exchanges; or award a firm fixed priced IDIQ contract after exchanges, whichever is in the best interest of the

Government.

The Government intends to award a Firm Fixed Priced (FFP) IDIQ contract to the responsible

Offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation by utilizing the Tradeoff Source Selection process. The Offeror’s proposal shall be in the form prescribed by, and shall contain a response to each of the areas identified in

Section L of the solicitation.

The selection of an Offeror for award will be conducted in one (1) phase. Phase I will consist of the evaluation of Factor I – Technical Approach, Factor II – Past Performance and Factor III –

Price Proposal.

Offerors receiving a rating of “Unacceptable” for Factor I are considered un-awardable and will not be further evaluated.

The evaluation of proposals will consider the Offeror’s non-price proposal to be significantly more important than the Offeror’s price proposal. Within the non-price factors, Factor I -

Technical Approach will be considered more important than Factor II - Past Performance.

Initially, proposals shall be ranked according to price, inclusive of all option pricing. An

Offeror’s proposed pricing will be determined by adding all extended amounts for the CLINs in

RFP Section B.

If the lowest priced Offeror is evaluated to have a Factor I Technical Approach rated as

‘Outstanding’, AND a Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating of ‘Substantial

Confidence’, that Offeror represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that Offeror without further consideration of any other proposals. However, if the lowest priced Offeror is not evaluated to have a Factor I –

Technical Approach rated as ‘Outstanding’ AND a ‘Substantial Confidence’ Past Performance

Confidence Assessment rating, the next-lowest priced Offeror will be evaluated. The evaluation process will continue (in order of price from lowest to highest) until a proposal is evaluated to have a Factor I –Technical Approach rated as ‘Outstanding’, AND a ‘Substantial Confidence’

Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The Government shall then make an integrated best-value award decision between that proposal rated with a Technical Approach rating as

‘Outstanding’, and an overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating of ‘Substantial

Confidence’ and all lower priced awardable proposals.

If no proposals are evaluated with a Factor I –Technical Approach rated as ‘Outstanding’, AND a ‘Substantial Confidence’ Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating, the Contracting

Officer shall make an integrated assessment best-value award decision from among the awardable Offerors.

Although price is 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 proposals in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based. The importance of price will also increase when a proposal's price is so significantly high as to diminish the value to the Government that might be gained under the other aspects of the proposal. If, at any stage of the evaluation, all Offerors are determined to have submitted equal, or virtually equal, non-price proposals, price could become the factor in determining which

Offerors shall receive the award.

The Government intends to award the contract without exchanges. Accordingly, each Offeror should submit its most favorable terms from a price and non-price standpoint. However, the

Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range and conduct exchanges if later determined by the PCO to be necessary. All proposals will be reviewed for timeliness. If the proposal is received after the closing date and does not meet the criteria for “late proposals” in the solicitation, the proposal will not be opened. Timely proposals will be reviewed for compliance to the solicitation. If the proposal is not compliant to the solicitation, it will not be evaluated and the Offeror will be notified that the proposal is non-responsive.

Evaluation of Factor I: Technical Approach

The Offeror’s overall approach will be evaluated on its feasibility, its comprehensiveness, and the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates how the requirements will be successfully accomplished. Specifically, offers will be evaluated on how well it demonstrated an understanding of and capability to meet the requirements stated in the PWS.

The purpose of the technical factor is to assess the Offeror’s proposed approach to satisfy the

Government’s requirements. The evaluation of risk is related to the assessment of the Offeror’s proposed technical approach. Risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed technical approach to the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful task order performance.

The combined technical/risk rating will be utilized in the evaluation of the non-price proposal.

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

Combined technical/risk evaluations will utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in the

Technical Ratings Table below.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Table

Adjectival

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 un-awardable.

Note: An Offeror that receives a “Marginal” rating for the technical factor is not eligible for award if award is made on initial proposals. Offerors that receive a “Marginal” rating are considered susceptible to correction if the contracting officer determines that an exchange

(pursuant to FAR 15.306) is appropriate and said exchange is conducted. An Offeror that receives a rating of “Unacceptable” in the technical factor is not awardable and will not be further evaluated.

Risk Description Table

Type of

Risk

Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close

Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable

Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Definitions:

Strength - An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness - A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness - A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency - A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Risk – (as it pertains to source selection) the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the Non-Price technical factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful task order performance.

Factor II: Past Performance

The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to meet the task order’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.

Factor II will be evaluated based on recency, relevancy and quality. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s recency, relevancy, and quality of the present and past performance to assess whether there is a reasonable expectation that a Offeror will successfully perform the requirement. For purposes of this evaluation, the “Offeror” includes any joint ventures, subcontractors and/or teaming partners proposed as part of the Prime Contractor’s team under this effort. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet user’s needs, including quality, cost and schedule. The evaluation will focus only on work experience already performed. Work yet-to-be performed, and work prior to the last five (5) years as of the RFP closing date, will not be considered. In addition, performance data will only be assessed for those references demonstrating at least one (1) year of completed performance and have been performed within five (5) years of the solicitation closing date.

For the Past Performance Factor, the ratings tables entitled “Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Table” and “Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Table,” respectively will be used for the assignment of ratings for relevancy and confidence assessment. Relevancy includes scope and magnitude. The Offeror’s past performance information will be evaluated to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

Past Performance Recency

First, the Government will evaluate each past performance reference to determine the 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 performance that has taken place within the requirements stated above.

Performance outside of this stated period will not be considered for evaluation purposes.

Past Performance Relevancy

Regarding relevancy, the Government will assess each recent past performance reference under each Offeror’s Past Performance submission to determine its scope and magnitude relative to the instant requirement. The following definitions will apply to this evaluation:

● Scope: Experience in the areas described in the PWS.

● Magnitude: The measure of the similarity of the dollar value of actually performed work that exists between the Offeror’s Past Performance submissions and the Independent Government

Estimate (IGE) for the scope of work detailed in the PWS. Magnitude will be evaluated on the dollar amount of work actually performed under the contract or contracts during the relevant period established by the solicitation.

The relevancy rating assigned to each past performance reference will be considered in determining the weight to be given to that reference in the overall Past 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 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.

The aggregate of each offeror’s past performance references in terms of scope and magnitude will result in the assessed overall relevance of that offeror’s past performance.

Offeror’s lacking relevant past performance history in the aggregate will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. However, the proposal of a Offeror with no relevant aggregated past performance history, while not be rated favorably or unfavorably for past performance, may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government. In this instance, the Offeror will receive a rating of “Neutral Confidence” in the past performance factor. 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 Relevancy Ratings are listed in the Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Table below:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Table

Rating Description

Very

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires.

Somewhat

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires.

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.

In order to determine the quality of performance, the Government may utilize existing data sources, including 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. The assignment of this rating will be based on the quality of the relevant past performance and will also consider the recency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance. The quality of performance under a past performance reference that has no relevance to the instant requirement will not be considered in the overall assessment of Past Performance Confidence. This evaluation and 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 RFQ. In determining the rating for the past performance evaluation factor, the Government will give greater consideration to the contracts which the Government feels are most relevant to the RFQ. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Table is below:

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Table

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.

Note: A rating of “Limited Confidence” for the past performance factor means that the

Offeror’s proposal is not awardable without a change or changes to the Offeror’s proposal. A proposal that includes a “Limited Confidence” rating is considered to be susceptible to correction if the contracting officer determines that an exchange is appropriate and said exchange is conducted. A rating of “No Confidence” for the past performance factor means that the Offeror’s proposal is not awardable and is not susceptible to correction.

Evaluation of Factor III: Price

Price will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. For the purpose of preparing a price proposal, the contractor shall assume that the basic period of performance will be one (1) 5 year ordering period and one (1) 6-month option period. The Government will evaluate the price proposal for the ordering period and optional 6 month extension.

The Offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated on the basis of price reasonableness. The evaluation may include, but is not limited to:

a. Price comparison with other Offerors

b. Comparison with Independent Government Estimate (IGE)

Options, to include FAR 52.217-8, will be evaluated pursuant to solicitation provision FAR

52.217-5, Evaluation of Options. The Government will evaluate proposals for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The

Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Although price is 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 proposals in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based. The importance of price will also increase when a proposal’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 Offerors are determined to have submitted equal, or virtually equal, non-price proposals, price could become the factor in determining which Offeror will receive the award.

Offerors responding to this solicitation are advised that, prior to award, the government may request Offerors to submit information/data to support price reasonableness such as copies of paid invoices for the same or similar items, sales history for the same or similar items, price list with effective date and/or copies of catalog pages along with any applicable discounts. Failure to submit the requested information may result in disqualification of the submitted proposal.

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 task order 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)