Amendment 0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to revise the follow ing:

(1) Update the period of performance for all line items in Section B. See Section F, Deliveries or Performance, for details.

(2) Section M.3.3 FACTOR 3 - PRICE, the last paragraph is revised to explain how the six month extension under FAR 52.217-8 w ill be evaluated, and how minor mathematical errors w ill be handled. See revised M.3.3, for details.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 14

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-Oct-2020

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X N0060420R4003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-Jul-2020

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 X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

23-Oct-2020

CODE

NAVSUP FLC PEARL HARBOR

1942 GAFFNEY STREET

STE 100

ATTN CURTIS CHANG

PEARL HARBOR HI 96860

N00604 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N0060420R4003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 17-Aug-2020 04:00 PM to 27-Oct-2020 04:00 PM.

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0001 has been changed from:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

POP 01-NOV-2020 TO

30-NOV-2020

N/A N/A

FOB: Destination

To:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

POP 01-JAN-2021 TO

31-JAN-2021

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0002 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-DEC-2020 TO

31-OCT-2021

CAGE

POP 01-FEB-2021 TO

31-DEC-2021

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0003 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-DEC-2020 TO

31-OCT-2021

CAGE

POP 01-FEB-2021 TO

31-DEC-2021

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0004 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-DEC-2020 TO

31-OCT-2021

CAGE

POP 01-FEB-2021 TO

31-DEC-2021

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0005 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-DEC-2020 TO

31-OCT-2021

CAGE

POP 01-FEB-2021 TO

31-DEC-2021

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0006 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-DEC-2020 TO

31-OCT-2021

CAGE

POP 01-FEB-2021 TO

31-DEC-2021

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 1001 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-NOV-2021 TO

31-OCT-2022

CAGE

POP 01-JAN-2022 TO

31-DEC-2022

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 1002 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-NOV-2021 TO

31-OCT-2022

CAGE

POP 01-JAN-2022 TO

31-DEC-2022

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 1003 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-NOV-2021 TO

31-OCT-2022

CAGE

POP 01-JAN-2022 TO

31-DEC-2022

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 1004 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-NOV-2021 TO

31-OCT-2022

CAGE

POP 01-JAN-2022 TO

31-DEC-2022

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 1005 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-NOV-2021 TO

31-OCT-2022

CAGE

POP 01-JAN-2022 TO

31-DEC-2022

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 2001 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-NOV-2022 TO

31-OCT-2023

POP 01-JAN-2023 TO

31-DEC-2023

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 2002 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-NOV-2022 TO

31-OCT-2023

CAGE

POP 01-JAN-2023 TO

31-DEC-2023

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 2003 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-NOV-2022 TO

31-OCT-2023

CAGE

POP 01-JAN-2023 TO

31-DEC-2023

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 2004 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-NOV-2022 TO

31-OCT-2023

POP 01-JAN-2023 TO

31-DEC-2023

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 2005 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-NOV-2022 TO

31-OCT-2023

CAGE

POP 01-JAN-2023 TO

31-DEC-2023

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 3001 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-NOV-2023 TO

31-OCT-2024

CAGE

POP 01-JAN-2024 TO

31-DEC-2024

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 3002 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-NOV-2023 TO

31-OCT-2024

POP 01-JAN-2024 TO

31-DEC-2024

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 3003 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-NOV-2023 TO

31-OCT-2024

CAGE

POP 01-JAN-2024 TO

31-DEC-2024

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 3004 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-NOV-2023 TO

31-OCT-2024

CAGE

POP 01-JAN-2024 TO

31-DEC-2024

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 3005 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-NOV-2023 TO

31-OCT-2024

POP 01-JAN-2024 TO

31-DEC-2024

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 4001 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-NOV-2024 TO

31-OCT-2025

CAGE

POP 01-JAN-2025 TO

31-DEC-2025

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 4002 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-NOV-2024 TO

31-OCT-2025

CAGE

POP 01-JAN-2025 TO

31-DEC-2025

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 4003 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-NOV-2024 TO

31-OCT-2025

POP 01-JAN-2025 TO

31-DEC-2025

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 4004 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-NOV-2024 TO

31-OCT-2025

CAGE

POP 01-JAN-2025 TO

31-DEC-2025

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 4005 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-NOV-2024 TO

31-OCT-2025

CAGE

POP 01-JAN-2025 TO

31-DEC-2025

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION

M.1 FACTORS

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate the proposal. The evaluation of proposals will consider the offeror's non-cost/price proposal to be more important than the cost/price proposal. Within the non-cost/price proposal, Technical (Factor 1) is equal to Past

Performance (Factor 2). The sub-factors within Technical (Factor 1) are of equal importance.

Factor 1 – Technical Sub-factor 1.1 – Technical Approach Sub-factor 1.2 – Management Approach Sub-factor 1.3 – Key Personnel and Staffing Plan Sub-factor 1.4 – Corporate Experience Sub-factor 1.5 – Transition Plan Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor 3 - Price

M.2 EVALUATION APPROACH

The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value- the proposal most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

A best value, tradeoff approach in accordance with FAR 15.101-1will be utilized to evaluate the offerors’ proposals. The contract will be awarded to the responsible offeror who submits a proposal which conforms to all requirements of the RFP and which provides the best value to the Government in terms of technical, past performance and price.

M.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA

M.3.1 FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

The following technical evaluation subfactors shall be used to evaluate the technical proposals. Adjectival ratings will be assigned to the Technical Sub-factors 1.1 – 1.5 as defined in section M.4 RATING TABLES and Table M.4.1 Technical Risk/Ratings. Use of adjectival ratings will allow maximum flexibility in making any tradeoffs among the evaluation factors. A narrative will be used in conjunction with the rating system to indicate the proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. Offerors simply providing general statements or paraphrasing the PWS in whole or in any part may result in a rating of ‘unacceptable.’ It is imperative that the Technical Proposal clearly demonstrates the technical expertise and capabilities to perform on all tasks related to the PWS in sufficient detail to establish technical acceptability.

A. SUB-FACTOR 1.1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

(1) The offeror’s understanding of the solicitation requirements by describing in detail their approach, methods, and techniques to effectively achieve the performance objectives/standards. The draft Integrated Maintenance Plan (IMP) supports the offeror’s understanding of the requirements. CDRL AF, Integrated Maintenance Plan, outlines IMP requirements.

(2) Identification of any risks the offeror expects to encounter and an explanation of how the technical approach and contingency plans will mitigate such risks.

B. SUB-FACTOR 1.2 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH

(1) The offeror’s approach in controlling and managing the performance requirements, including interface between functional areas and technical specifications. Include a methodology for controlling, planning, and executing services while minimizing performance risk in meeting performance objectives.

(2) A Quality Control Plan (QCP) that demonstrates an understanding of the offeror’s responsibility for conducting quality control and assurance; the QCP also describes quality control and assurance processes. CDRL AB, Quality Control Plan, outlines QCP requirements.

(3) The offeror’s approach to effectively recruit and retain qualified Key Personnel.

C. SUB-FACTOR 1.3 – KEY PERSONNEL AND STAFFING PLAN

(1) The offeror’s staffing plan, identifying the organization and workforce for each location/function, including the location of Key Personnel, lines of management authority, supervision, span of control, and accountability, including the following relationships: between corporate and on-site management/administration; between/across technical specifications; between prime and subcontractors. Include an organization chart and resumes of key personnel. An actual resume is required for the Program Manager. Sample resumes for the rest of the Key Personnel are allowed;

however, actual resumes are required to be submitted prior to the commencement of contract performance, and those personnel must meet or exceed the qualifications and experience set forth in the sample resumes.

D. SUB-FACTOR 1.4 – CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

(1) No more than three of the most recent, relevant contract projects performed within the past five years.

(2) The offeror’s narrative regarding relevant experiences within the past on projects similar in size, scope, and complexity of the PWS.

(3) Proof of active facility clearance (FCL), inactive FCLs within the past years, and any adverse actions.

The distinction between corporate experience and past performance is corporate experience pertains to the types of work and volume of work completed by an offeror that are comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past Performance relates to how well a contractor has performed.

E. SUB-FACTOR 1.5 – TRANSITION PLAN

(1) A clear and feasible phase-in transition plan that includes timelines to obtain all resources required

(manpower, equipment, finances, inventory, etc.) and designed to provide optimal continuous service to the Government.

(2) The offeror’s narrative demonstrating clear understanding of the problems and risks involved in a transition, and reasonable solutions to such problems and ways to mitigate such risks.

M.3.2 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

An adjectival rating will be assigned to the Past Performance factor as defined in section M.4. The assessment of the offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the relative capability of the offeror to successfully meet the performance objectives. The Past Performance Proposal will be evaluated according to recency, relevancy and quality. Recency is defined as the time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. Relevancy is defined as the similarity of past services to the requirement, including complexity, dollar value and contract type. Quality of past performance is determined by how well the offeror performed past contracts. With respect to relevancy, past performance of greater relevancy 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. Once offerors’ past performances meet recency standards defined in the RFP and are determined relevant as defined in Table M.4.2 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings, offers will be rated according to the Table M.4.3 Past Performance Ratings.

The Government may verify past performance information and may contact some or all of the references provided, as appropriate, and may collect information through questionnaires, telephone interviews, and other data sources to include but not limited to Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases;

the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the offeror.

If an offeror has no 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. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or neutral) past performance and shall be evaluated ‘Neutral Confidence.’

M.3.3 FACTOR 3 - PRICE

An adjectival rating will not be assigned to the Price factor, but the Price Proposal will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). The proposed prices will be analyzed for completeness and reasonableness.

A. Completeness. All information/data required by the solicitation has been submitted, ties to the PWS requirements, and supports the offer.

B. Reasonableness. Prices/costs are fully justified, supported, considered fair under current market conditions, and reasonable to both the offeror and the Government.

For award purposes, The Government will evaluate the Price Proposals by adding the total price for all options to the price for the phase-in base period of performance. Options will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.217-5.

The six month extension under FAR 52.217-8 will be evaluated by taking the offeror’s proposed price for the last option year and dividing it in half. This amount will be then be added to the base period and four option years to calculate the overall price. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Note that the evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

Offeror’s Unit Pricing in Section B will be multiplied by the quantity to arrive at the extended amount for each line item. Minor mathematical errors due to incorrect calculations or rounding issues will be adjusted by the Government accordingly to arrive at the total contract price.

M.4 RATING TABLES

Table M.4.1 Technical / Risk Ratings Adjectival Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Note: The following information is pertinent to the rating of the technical proposals:

“Strength” is 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" is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

"Significant Weakness" in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

“Deficiency" is 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.

Table M.4.2 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Adjectival Rating Description 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.

Table M.4.3 Past Performance Ratings Adjectival 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 performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to 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 performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

M.5 ASSUMPTIONS

Assumptions, while not a separate evaluation factor, will be reviewed in the context of the Technical factor.

Assumptions that may adversely impact performance requirements may be grounds for an ‘unacceptable’ rating.

(End of Summary of Changes)