N0025314R0010_0001_10June14.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001

Questions and Answers Question 1: Could we get the drawings for this solicitation?

Answer 1: Refer to Section L, Instructions, Note 4 - Proposal Submission for instructions on how to obtain copies of the drawings.

Question 2: Can you request the following support prints?

Answer 2: Drawings 5616977, Pin, Alignment, Shell; Drawing 8290025, Manifold, Depth Switch; Drawing 8290016, Bottle & Electronics Mounting Plate are being provided via Amendment 0001 of Solicitation N00253-14-R-0010, updated Attachment 1, dated 10 June 2014. Drawing 8290017, Foam, Bottle Mount was provided in Solicitation N00253-14-R-0010 Attachment 1, released on 27 May 2014.

Question 3: Attachment 1 (Drawings) and Attachment 3 (Past Performance Worksheet) are posted to FBO along with the solicitation but there is no Attachment 2 posted. Can you please clarify this?

Answer 3: Refer to Section J Clause HQ J-2-0002 Contract Language for Section J. A website is provided for downloading a copy of Attachment 2.

Question 4: The following drawings are needed to quote this work and were not included in the TDP:

5816977 PIN, ALIGNMENT SHELL is called out on drawing 8290001, Hull, Cold Gas

8290025 MANIFOLD, DEPTH SWITCH is called out on drawing 8290527, Depth Manifold Assembly Cold Gas

8290016 BOTTLE & ELECTRONICS MOUNTING PLATE is called out on drawing 8290039, Bottle & Electronic Mount Assembly

Are you able to provide these drawings?

Answer 4: Drawings 5616977, Pin, Alignment, Shell; Drawing 8290025, Manifold, Depth Switch; Drawing 8290016, Bottle & Electronics Mounting Plate are being provided via Amendment 0001 of Solicitation N00253-14-R-0010, updated Attachment 1, dated 10 June 2014.

Question 5: Where can I find reference drawing 8290001?

Answer 5: Refer to Section L, Instructions, Note 4 - Proposal Submission for instructions on how to obtain copies of the drawings.

Question 6: Is the foam bottle mount bought from Rogers Corporation?

Answer 6: The drawing calls out a specific part number, which is the required part for the Foam Bottle Mount. It is the contractor responsibility to determine, if the specific part can be purchased from vendors besides Rogers Corporation.

Question 7: For the Depth manifold Assembly, are there any additional drawings with dimensions?

Answer 7: Drawing 8290025, Manifold, Depth Switch is being provided via Amendment 0001 of Solicitation N00253-14-R-0010, updated Attachment 1, dated 10 June 2014.

Question 8: The Sleeve, is it the druck sleeve cold gas drawing provided?

Answer 8: The Sleeve needs to be manufactured in accordance with Drawing 8290694, Druck Sleeve Cold Gas.

Question 9: The Housing scuttle valve has no drawing provided, the spring conical has no drawing, the piston has no drawing, the flood nut has no drawing, the protective label has no drawing. Please provide me with information needed to complete this proposal.

Answer 9: The Housing scuttle valve, the spring conical, the piston, the flood nut, and the protective label are no longer being procured under solicitation N00253-14-R-0010 and are not included in Section B of Solicitation N00253-14-R-0010. The FBO synopsis will be revised to remove these items.

Question 10: If awarded the contract we would need to make 1 Hull Cold Gas sent it to you for testing prior to going forward with the additional 91Hull Cold Gas and all other parts and quantities listed?

Answer 10: One (1) First Article Hull Cold Gas (CLIN 0001) will be manufactured and delivered to the government within 90 days from contract award. CLIN 0002 Hull Cold Gas will be delivered within 90 days after first article testing acceptance. CLIN 0003 through 0015 will be delivered 90 days after contract award. For a Delivery schedule, refer to Section F, Delivery Information and clause 52.211-8 Time of Delivery. For First Article Acceptance information, refer to Section I, 52.209-4 First Article Approval--Government Testing.

Question 11: Drawing 8290007 calls out 4140 IAW ASTM A322, which is a round bar specification. Could the part be produced using 4140 plate instead of round bar?

Answer 11: Yes, 4140 steel plate (IAW ASTM A829 and Normalized at 1700 deg. F) can be used for bottle manifold production IAW drawing 8290007.

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 26-Jun-2014 02:00 PM to 11-Jul-2014 02:00 PM.

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

HQ J-2-0002 CONTRACT LANGUAGE FOR SECTION J PRIVATE

The following document(s), exhibit(s), and other attachment(s) form a part of this contract:

ATTACHMENT 1 – Drawings – Updated 10 June 2014

ATTACHMENT 2: NAVSEA NUWC Division Keyport, OPSEC Guide For Defense Contractors, Rev Oct 2013 (Incorporated by reference. Document can be downloaded from http://www.navsea.navy.mil/nuwc/keyport/default.aspx; click on OPSEC Guide For Defense Contractors on the left-hand side.)

ATTACHMENT 3: Past Performance Worksheet (will not become part of the award document)

(End of Text)

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS

NOTE 1 – QUESTIONS: All questions and inquiries shall be sent in writing as soon as practicable after receipt of solicitation. Questions shall be submitted via e-mail to Ms. Dawyn Martinez at dawyn.martinez@navy.mil no later than five (5) days prior to the closing date of the solicitation. Offeror must receive confirmation of receipt to ensure e-mail correspondence was received by the Government.

NOTE 2 – POINT OF CONTACT: The Contract Specialist assists the Contracting Officer during the pre-award phase. The Contract Specialist is the preferred point of contact for questions and problem reporting, and should be contacted first for all pre-award matters.

Name:

Dawyn Martinez

Address:

Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) Division Keyport

610 Dowell Street

Code 182

Keyport, WA 98345

Telephone:

(360) 315-8501

E-mail:

dawyn.martinez@navy.mil NOTE 3 – PROPOSED EXCEPTIONS TO RFP: As noted in Section C, paragraph entitled “Compliance with Specifications”, any exceptions or deviations to the Government specifications included in this solicitation must be clearly identified in a cover letter and submitted as part of your proposal. If deviations are proposed, the offeror shall provide an explanation of how the proposed item/service meets the requirements of the specifications. Failure to notify the Government of all deviations prior to award may be grounds for contract termination.

NOTE 4 – PROPOSAL SUBMISSION: Proposals may be mailed, submitted electronically, or faxed. Mailed proposals shall be sent to Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Keyport, 610 Dowell Street, Attn: Dawyn Martinez, Code 18, Keyport, Washington 98345. Electronic proposals shall be e-mailed to dawyn.martinez@navy.mil. Faxed proposals shall be sent to (360) 396-7036. Offerors shall provide an email to dawyn.martinez@navy.mil requesting confirmation of Government receipt of the proposal submission regardless of the method (mail, email, or fax) utilized for submission. Offerors must receive confirmation of receipt to ensure proposals have been received by the Government.

The Product Specifications and Drawings are classified for authorized DoD and DoD contractors only. To access the Performance Specifications please go to http://www.fedbizopps.gov/. Instructions on how to receive classified information can be found in Section H, Paragraph C.106 and Paragraph C.107 of the solicitation.

Drawings referenced in this solicitation are restricted by the Arms Export Control Act and are only available to the vendor’s/contractor’s appointed Data Custodian that is registered with DLIS Defense Logistics Info Svc (DLIS) Joint Certification Program (JCP). Vendor’s/Contractor’s Data Custodian’s that are not registered with DLIS JCP can obtain registration information at www.dlis.dla.mil/jcp/ or by phone at 888-352-9333.

Drawings for this solicitation have been posted to the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website: https://www.fbo.gov. Bidders who have registered with FedBizOpps and have registered in DLIS JCP can access this data under solicitation number N00253-14-R-0010.

NOTE 5 – PROPOSAL CONTENT: Each offeror’s proposal shall contain the following:

a) Cover letter containing:

· The solicitation number

· The name, address, telephone and facsimile numbers, and e-mail address of the offeror

· The DUNS Number and CAGE Code of the Offeror

· Offerors shall indicate that prices are valid for 90 days from date of solicitation closing

· Names, titles, phone numbers, facsimile numbers, and e-mail addresses of persons authorized to negotiate and sign on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation

b) Complete Standard Form (SF) 33, including pricing for all line items outlined in Section B

c) Complete Representations and Certifications in accordance with Section K. If Representations and Certifications are filled out with System for Award Management (SAM) online, please state so in your proposal

d) Complete Technical Proposal

e) Complete Past Performance Reference Information Worksheet

NOTE 6 – PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: Proposals shall demonstrate understanding of the requirements and the proposed method of completing the Section C Statement of Work and all other requirements of the solicitation. Offers must meet or exceed the specifications in the solicitation and any subsequent amendments. Offeror’s Technical Proposals shall address the following: (limited to ten (10) pages not including the Cover Letter or Past Performance Worksheet).

Factor 1 – Technical Acceptability: To determine technical acceptability, offerors shall provide all necessary information for a comprehensive technical evaluation, including the following:

a) A detailed narrative that demonstrates the offeror’s capability to produce items similar to the items listed in Section B. The narrative shall specifically address the offeror’s facilities, manufacturing processes, personnel expertise, and work experience in manufacturing items similar to the items listed in Section B.

b) Documentation that demonstrates that the offeror has identified the risks involved with manufacturing the items listed in Section B and documentation of a thorough and realistic risk mitigation strategy for each risk identified.

c) Documentation that demonstrates an understanding and execution of a successful quality assurance program.

d) A detailed narrative that demonstrates knowledge of manufacturing to build to print drawings and specifications as well as manufacturing knowledge of items similar to the items listed in Section B.

Factor 2 – Past Performance Acceptability: Offerors shall demonstrate past performance and the ability to deliver products and services of high quality by completing the Past Performance Reference Information sheet (Attachment 3 to this RFP) for up to five (5) recently completed Federal Government contracts for like or similar items under this solicitation. If you do not have any Federal Government contracts, then list state, local, or commercial contracts, in that order, to complete your Past Performance Reference Information. Offerors are encouraged to submit brief and concise responses. Failure to submit the Past Performance Reference Information may be considered certification that the contractor has no past performance for like or similar items for the Government to evaluate.

Factor 3 – Price: Offerors are required to submit prices for all line items and quantities included in the solicitation, with the exception of “Not Separately Priced” line items. Failure to submit a price for any priced line items may result in the offer being rejected as unacceptable.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

NOTE 1 – EVALUATION METHODOLOGY: The offeror must be determined to have acceptable technical and past performance before further consideration will be given; that is, selection of the contractor is to be based on the establishment of minimum requirements to be evaluated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis. Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-price factors. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factor. Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) non-price factors include Technical and Past Performance. The Contracting Officer will select the offer, in conformance with the solicitation, which is determined technically and past performance acceptable and offers the lowest price.

NOTE 2 – EVALUATION FACTORS & CRITERIA: Offerors will be evaluated based on the following:

Factor 1 – Technical Acceptability: Offers must be able to provide the required manufactured supplies that meet or exceed the specifications identified in the solicitation and any subsequent amendments. Failure to demonstrate technical acceptability, upon which an assessment can be made with confidence of an offeror’s technical capabilities, will be deemed as that offeror being not technically acceptable. The proposal will be evaluated for completeness and accuracy of information, and whether the proposal addresses each specific area of the Statement of Work. In order for offerors to be determined technically acceptable they must demonstrate the following:

a) Offerors must demonstrate the capability to produce items similar to the items listed in Section B. Offeror must specifically demonstrate that they have adequate facilities, manufacturing processes, personnel expertise, and work experience to manufacture items similar to the items listed in Section B.

b) Offerors must identify the risks involved with manufacturing the items listed in Section B and provide a thorough and realistic risk mitigation strategy for each risk identified.

c) Offerors must demonstrate understanding and execution of a successful quality assurance program.

d) Offerors must demonstrate knowledge of manufacturing to build to print drawings and specifications as well as manufacturing knowledge of the items similar to the items listed in Section B.

Factor 2 – Past Performance Acceptability: Past performance will be evaluated on whether the offeror has demonstrated the ability to deliver products and services of high quality in the past and complied with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Quality will be evaluated in terms of customer satisfaction, instances of rework, deficiency reports, and evidence of effective and innovative work applications which were beneficial to the customer. Past performance references for efforts providing applicable experience relative to the solicitation requirements will be given higher consideration. The offeror shall provide a maximum of five (5) references. The Past Performance Reference Information sheet, included in the solicitation may be used for providing information. Offerors shall include an accessible point of contact, including name and telephone number, for each reference provided.

The Government may contact some of each offeror’s customers to ask whether or not they believe: (1) that the offeror is capable, efficient and effective; (2) that the offeror’s performance conformed to the terms and conditions of its contract; (3) that the offeror was reasonable and cooperative during performance; (4) that the offeror was committed to customer satisfaction; and (5) that the offeror was able to hire and retain qualified personnel necessary for successful completion of customer requirements. Additionally they may ask if given a chance would they select the same or a different Contractor and/or other questions related to the offeror’s ability in the areas identified for this Factor.

The Government may consider past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the offeror, such as published media and electronic databases. Only past performance that is relative to the specified item will be evaluated. It is the responsibility of the offeror to relate past performance to the specifications.

Government evaluators may utilize federal, state, and local past performance databases including, but not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and DLA’s Mechanization of Contract Administration Services (MOCAS) system. The Government may research offeror performance on any federal, state, local, and commercial contract performance of the offeror that is known to the Government, but not included on a submitted “Past Performance Worksheet." Additionally, the personal experience and evaluator knowledge of offeror performance may be utilized.

The Government will consider the relevance of past performance information obtained in relation to the scope of this procurement. Past performance, either positive or negative, which is considered by the Government to be more closely related to the scope of this effort, will be given greater weight in determining offerors Past Performance acceptability/unacceptability.

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 past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

If the contractor does not provide past performance information with its offer, the Contracting Officer need not pursue further information if it is clear that the offeror’s price is not competitive.

Factor 3 – Price: Offerors are required to submit prices for all line items included in the solicitation, with the exception of “Not Separately Priced” line items. Failure to submit a price for any line items may result in the offer being rejected as unacceptable. Pricing will be reviewed for the following:

a) Completeness. All pricing information required by the solicitation has been provided, all mathematic computations are correct and the pricing application understood, prices are on an “all or none” basis, and failure to submit a price on an item or a number of items may cause this factor and the entire offer to be determined unacceptable.

b) Reasonableness. Price analysis comparisons indicate the offered price to be fair and reasonable. No award will be made at other than a fair and reasonable price.

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement including the first article. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options(s). The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced.

NOTE 3 – EVALUATION RATINGS – Offerors will be evaluated based on the following:

Factor 1 - Technical Acceptability: Technical acceptability will be assessed according to the following evaluation ratings and criteria:

TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

a) Offeror has the capability to produce items similar to the items listed in Section B. Offeror must specifically demonstrate that they have adequate facilities, manufacturing processes, personnel expertise, and work experience to manufacture items similar to the items listed in Section B.

b) Offeror has identified the risks involved with manufacturing the items listed in Section B and has provided a thorough and realistic risk mitigation strategy for each risk identified.

c) Offeror has an understanding of and has executed a successful quality assurance program.

d) Offeror has knowledge of manufacturing to build to print drawings and specifications as well as manufacturing knowledge of items similar to the items listed in Section B.

a) Offeror has the capability to produce items similar to the items listed in Section B. Offeror must specifically demonstrate that they have adequate facilities, manufacturing processes, personnel expertise, and work experience to manufacture items similar to the items listed in Section B.

b) Offeror has identified the risks involved with manufacturing the items listed in Section B and has provided a thorough and realistic risk mitigation strategy for each risk identified.

c) Offeror has an understanding of and has executed a successful quality assurance program.

d) Offeror has knowledge of manufacturing to build to print drawings and specifications as well as manufacturing knowledge of items similar to the items listed in Section B.

Factor 2 - Past Performance Acceptability: Past Performance acceptability will be assessed according to the following evaluation ratings and criteria:

PAST PERFORMANCE ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

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 past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

(End of Summary of Changes)