N00421-19-R-0003__Amendment_0001.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 modify the solicitation and provide answ ers to questions received betw een 09 October 2019 and 15

October 2019.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-Oct-2019

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 N0042119R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

09-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 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

17-Oct-2019

CODE

NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER AD

CODE 2.5.1.3, BLDG 433, 47060 LILJENCRANTZ RO

PATUXENT RIVER MD 20670

N00421 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N0042119R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001

Changes made to Solicitation N00421-19-R-0003 and responses to questions from industry via Amendment 0001 are outlined below. The proposal due date and time has not changed; all submissions shall be in accordance with

Block 9 of the Solicitation cover page.

1. Question 1): Is the IAPE solicitation a small business set aside or full and open?

Answer 1): Please refer to the FBO synopsis for the IAPE solicitation which states, “This procurement will be a full and open competition.”

2. Question 2): Can you please make an Interested Vendors tab available for subcontractors who cannot be the Prime on this effort?

Answer 2): An Interested Vendors tab is available for interested vendors to provide their business information. Please provide the following information in order to be added to the Interested Vendors tab:

1. Company Name

2. Company Address

3. Phone Number

4. Point of Contact

5. Email

Additional Changes made by the Government

1. Section M, Part C, Section 3.0, Table 4 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS has been modified to correct the descriptions for Satisfactory Confidence and Neutral Confidence.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (SERVICES) (SEP 2019)

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

The Government expects to select one Offeror whose proposal offers the “best value” to the Government, using the trade-off method. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit(s) in response to the requirement. The Offeror is advised that the lowest priced proposal meeting the solicitation requirements may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional price.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

2.1 In accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except minor clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price or cost and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting

Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. Failure to address each of the areas identified in Section L Part B Specific Information in the proposal may impact the resulting evaluation ratings and risk assessment.

2.2 For the Technical factor and each subfactor, a combined Technical/Risk rating will be assigned. This method reflects whether the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements along with an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal to determine the combined

Technical/Risk rating. The benefit to the Government associated with assessed strengths along with technical risk will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being Good or Outstanding.

Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical subfactor with an “Unacceptable” Technical/Risk

Rating will result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and the offeror’s proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

2.3 Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate recent, relevant performance to determine how well an

Offeror has performed work similar to the work required by the solicitation. When proposals are received from joint ventures, specifically formed by the Offeror to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual JV team member’s recent, relevant past performance. After evaluating the Offeror’s past performance information, a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Performance

Confidence Assessment Rating than past performance of lesser relevance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, the Offeror will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of “Unknown

Confidence (Neutral)” which is considered a “Neutral” rating.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals shall be evaluated using the factors and any subfactors listed below.

Factors:

a. TECHNICAL

Subfactors:

1) Understanding of the Work

2) Workforce

3) Management Approach

b. PAST PERFORMANCE

c. PRICE/COST

Factors are listed in descending order of importance. The Technical subfactors are also listed in descending order of importance.

Technical and Past Performance factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price/Cost.

Technical is more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is more important than Price/Cost.

Price/Cost is not the most important evaluation factor, but its degree of importance will increase commensurably with the degree of equality among different Offeror’s Technical and Past Performance proposals.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the Offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the Offeror's approach. The evaluation will also include an assessment of the following:

1.1 Understanding of the Work

a. Statement of Work (SOW)/Performance Work Statement (PWS) Approach: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the work based on information provided as required by Section L of this solicitation. The Government will assess the degree of the Offeror’s understanding of the work requirements and assess the Offeror’s capability to meet contract requirements based upon the Offeror’s response to the instructions provided in Section L.

b. Sample Tasks: The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposed approach to each Sample Task to assess its demonstrated ability to meet requirements, adequacy of its approach, understanding of requirements, perceived benefits and associated risk. There is no relative importance for Sample Task One and Sample Task Two. Both Sample Tasks are weighted equally and will be evaluated as such.

1.2 Workforce

The Government will evaluate all proposed Key Personnel and the supporting information to determine if they meet the minimum qualifications requirements. In addition, Key Personnel proposed to be utilized in the performance of this effort, whose labor qualifications exceed the minimum requirements in such areas as Education, Experience, and Security Clearance levels may be considered a strength if the Government determines that the proposed qualification(s) ia/are advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

1.3 Management Approach

a. Management Approach: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed management approach based on the information required by Section L of this solicitation. The management approach will be evaluated to assess the Offeror’s usage of teaming, personnel, and subcontractors, and the extent to which the proposed processes and procedures ensure successful accomplishment of the tasks described in the SOW/PWS.

b. Small Business Utilization Strategy: The Offeror’s strategy for utilizing Small Business, Small

Disadvantaged Business, Women Owned Small Business, HUBZone Small Business, Veteran Owned Small

Business, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business concerns compliance with any minimum required Small Business goals as identified in Section L, as well as its consistency with the proposed Small

Business Subcontracting Plan (if applicable) will be evaluated.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. The first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance reference. A past performance reference will be considered recent if the contract/order has been performed within 5 (five) years of the solicitation release date. Past Performance that is not recent will not be considered in the evaluation.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess how relevant the past performance being evaluated is to the requirements of this solicitation. When evaluating relevancy, which includes the similarity of scope, complexity, and magnitude of the past performance to the current solicitation, the Government will focus on performance similar to the SOW/PWS paragraphs and their respective subparagraphs listed below (in order of importance):

3.3.4

3.3.5

3.3.6

3.3.1

3.3.2

3.3.3

3.3.7

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s recent relevant past performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror, principal subcontractors, and JV team members’ performance and focus its evaluation on the following areas:

1) meeting technical requirements, i.e., the quality of technical performance

2) meeting schedule requirements, e.g., on time or late delivery

3) controlling contract cost

4) managing the contracted effort, i.e., program management

5) regulatory compliance

6) the demonstrated systemic improvement actions taken to resolve past problems

7) Small Business Utilization.

A separate quality rating will not be assigned, rather the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

3.0 PRICE/COST

3.1 Cost Reimbursement CLINs (CPFF Labor Term, CPFF Labor Completion, Foreign-Area Allowances, Other Direct Costs (ODCs)):

Except for otherwise unacceptable proposals when awarding on initial proposals, the Government will perform a cost realism analysis to determine the most probable cost (MPC) for each applicable offeror’s proposal. Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost to determine whether the proposed cost is realistic for the work to be performed and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. In conducting its cost realism evaluation, the Government may review the prospective Offeror’s proposed labor categories and compare the proposed rate to the average labor rate in industry or other similar rates within the same demographic zone where the work is to be performed. Pertinent cost information, including but not limited to DCAA recommended rates for such costs as direct labor, overhead, G&A, etc., as necessary and appropriate, will be used to arrive at the Government determination of the MPC for the performance of this contract.

The MPC is an Offeror’s total cost, including fee, and any additional adjustments the Government has determined necessary to make the proposed cost realistic for all periods. The Government will use the results of its cost realism analysis to determine the MPC of performance for each Offeror. The MPC may differ from the proposed cost. The higher of the MPC or proposed cost will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. Contract awarded value, however, will be based upon the successful Offeror’s proposed costs.

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), various price analysis techniques and procedures will be employed to ensure the prices being proposed for this requirement are fair and reasonable.

3.3 Firm Fixed Price CLINs (FFP Operational Flight Hours):

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Price/Cost Volume for its proposed total price and price reasonableness and whether the offeror completed the information requested in Section L.

3.4 Overall Summary Level for all CLINs:

Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. It is expected that the award decision will include a determination that there is adequate price competition and that the proposed prices are reasonable. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the Government to determine reasonableness. If, after receipt of a proposal, the Procuring Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR § 15.403-1(b) apply, the offeror may be requested to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR § 15.403-4.

Prospective Offerors are forewarned that if there are discrepancies between Section B, Attachments (P6) and (P7), and Volume 3 Price/Cost Narrative, Section B prevails.

3.5 Total Professional Employee Compensation Plan:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Total Compensation Plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46.

3.6 Small Business (SB) Subcontracting Plan

The Government will evaluate the Large Business Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with

FAR 19.7 and DFARS 219.7; additionally, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated to confirm compliance with any minimum required Small Business goals as identified in Section L, as well as its consistency with the proposed Small Business Utilization Strategy.

4.0 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE

The total evaluated price is the sum of all fixed price CLINs plus the MPC for cost reimbursement-type CLINs.

PART C: EVALUATION RATING AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

1.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

The definitions below will be used by the Government when assessing solicitation compliance and the expected results of the Offeror's proposed approach. The appropriate adjectival rating will be assigned to each Technical

Factor and Subfactor, as required. The Government will utilize a combined technical/risk rating for this effort.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings: The combined technical/risk assignments are provided in Table 1 below:

Table 1 COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

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.

Table 1 COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

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.

Risk Ratings: The Risk Rating descriptions are provided in Table 2 below:

Table 2 Risk Rating Descriptions

Rating Definition

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.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings: More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating descriptions are provided in Table 3 below:

Table 3 Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Rating Definition

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

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

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

3.0 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

The Government will employ the Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method described in the table below. In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent 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. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown or neutral past performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating: Performance Confidence Assessment rating assignments reflect the

Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the

Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance record.

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating descriptions are provided in Table 4 below.

Table 4 Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

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.

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.

4.0 OTHER DEFINITIONS

Strengths: 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. (FAR 15.001)

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (FAR

15.001)

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

15.001)

Recency: As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the

Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Relevancy: As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Risk: As it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the Technical Factor or Subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased

Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

(End of Summary of Changes)