N3220518R0055U0004.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

See Full Text Description of Amendment under Summary of Changes

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 16-Feb-2018

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 N3220518R0055

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

31-Jan-2018

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 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

16-Feb-2018

CODE

MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND NORFOLK

471 EAST C STREET, BLDG SP-64 NAVAL STATION N

NORFOLK VA 23511-2419

N32205 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N3220518R0055

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT

Amendment 0004 to N3220518R0055 hereby incorporates the following:

Questions and Answers-

Q1) The Senior Marine Engineer has for a requirement “BACHELOR’S Degree in mechanical/marine engineering or other similar engineering program”. Following the establishment of the U.S. Naval Academy in the 1800s, the

Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association established the Calhoon Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association

Engineering School in 1966. The maritime school offers over fifty courses to union members and outside engineering professionals that are accepted throughout the Maritime Industry in lieu of a degree in engineering. Can attendance and passing of Calhoon Engineering Courses that relate to the work in the PWS be used in lieu of the requirement for a BACHELOR’S Degree in mechanical/marine engineering or other similar engineering program?

A1) All contract personnel must meet the requirements specified in the PWS for each labor category. Accordingly, resumes submitted shall reflect those requirements as stated, specifically in this instance, a "BACHELOR’S Degree in mechanical/marine engineering or other similar engineering program.”

Q2) In the case that we do not have a facility clearance, are we completely out? Or could we team up with another company that does have the facility clearance and move forward with the proposal from there?

A2) The contract requires that awardees have an active facility clearance - DD254. Under DD254 instructions, there are provisions for the Government Contracting Authority to sponsor the company's facility clearance application.

These instructions should guide offeror’s in understanding of the clearance process. However, please note that the prime contractor will be responsible for obtaining clearance prior to the commencement of performance.

Q3) What would suffice as proof that we are JCP certified?

A3) JCP certification requires submission of form DD2345 to the Defense Logistics Agency J6 Information

Operations division. The DLA website has a search link

(https://public.logisticsinformationservice.dla.mil/jcp/search.aspx) to verify companies holding certification. A screenshot showing your company listed for JCP will demonstrate contract compliance.

Q4) Per RFP section 14.1, under Thermographic Surveyor, bullet three (3) states that the proposed thermographic surveyors are to be Certified by the Infraspection Institute as an Infraspection Institute Certified Infrared

Thermographer. Our thermographic surveyors are certified through the Infrared Training Center (ICT) as Certified

Infrared Thermographers. ICT is the only thermography training organization to receive ISO 9001 certification and provides globally-recognized training designed to exceed the requirements of international standards. Also, ICT

Course Certifications meet or exceed ASNT SNT-TC-1A guidelines, and Level I and Level II training is accredited by NETA. Are thermographer certifications from ICT acceptable to MSC and in accordance with this solicitation?

A4) The ITC Infrared Thermography certification is determined to be equivalent to the specified Infraspection

Institute certification and is considered to be acceptable.

Q5) Do amendments 001 and 002 also have to be signed and returned? I found the information stating that amendment 003 had to be signed and returned but not for 001 or 002.

A5) All offerors must acknowledge receipt of all amendments, as described in block 11 of the SF 30, prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by:

a) Completing items 8 and 15 of the SF 30 and returning the amendment

b) Acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted

c) By separate letter or telegram which includes reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers.

Q6) There are four (4) sample tasks responses required in the subject RFP (Pg.33 of 67). There are 5 sample tasks included in Attachment III. Does MSC expect four (4) sample task responses or five (5)? Does the sample task page count remain at 40 pages regardless (Page 32 of 67)?

A6) Offerors shall provide responses to all five (5) sample tasks. The 40 page limit still applies. Accordingly, the following instruction is added for the 5 th sample task:

Sample Task #5: Discuss how the equipment test plans are to be developed.

Q7) Per the RFP requirements, under Section 14.1, the positions listed for Senior Marine Engineer, Senior Engineer, Senior Automation Engineer, Lead Electrical Engineer, Lead Marine Engineer, Senior Safety/Safety Management

System Specialist, and Engineer/Naval Architect require evidence of having held a USCG Merchant Marine

Credential with specific ratings and endorsements. Since the terminology in the requirement states that the person needs to provide evidence of having held the USCG Merchant Marine Credential with the specific ratings and endorsements, will MSC accept personnel who have expired USCG Merchant Marine Credentials with the specific ratings and endorsements?

A7) MSC will accept expired Merchant Marine Credentials as long as they can prove that the individual held the specified ratings and endorsements and sailed at the specified ratings for the noted duration.

For example, the Senior Marine Engineer will have to demonstrate that they sailed on their Chief Engineer's license for at least 5 years.

Q8) Will the Government consider an extension to the solicitation closing date?

A8) 02 March 2018, 3:00 PM local time, Norfolk, VA remains the closing date and time for the subject solicitation.

52.212-1 (ADDENDUM) ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

Any inconsistency between FAR Provision 52.212-1 and the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 shall be solved by giving precedence to the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1.

SUBMISSION PACKAGE

Proposals may be only hand delivered or mailed. Hand delivered and mailed proposals shall be sent to the following location and must be received, and the Government must acknowledge timely receipt there, prior to the due date and time for proposal submission:

Military Sealift Command

Attn: Christina McCloud

471 C Street

Naval Station Norfolk, VA 23511-2419

In the case of a base closure or delay (inclement weather, government shutdown, etc.), Offerors shall follow the same guidance issued to the Government. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to check media outlets for this information. Questions may be directed to the Contracting Officer in this event.

Access to the Naval Station Norfolk is restricted. Offerors, couriers, and other delivery services may encounter unpredictable and lengthy delays or denied access when attempting to enter that facility. Similarly, mailed proposals may encounter unpredictable and lengthy routing delays. In all cases, Offerors are responsible for the risks associated with the chosen delivery method and for ensuring that the Government receives the complete proposal at the appropriate designated location prior to the due date and time for proposal submission.

The proposal must demonstrate an understanding of and ability to meet all of the requirements set forth in the

Performance Work Statement (PWS) referenced herein. Throughout the proposal, the Offeror shall provide sufficient detail to substantiate the validity of all statements. The Offeror shall demonstrate that the proposal is in compliance with the requirements, terms, and conditions of the solicitation.

Comprehensive responses to the requirements of this solicitation are required to enable the Government to evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of and capability to accomplish the requirements of the PWS. The proposal must clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to meet the requirements of the solicitation and successfully accomplish and manage all requirements of the solicitation. General statements that the Offeror can or will comply with the requirements, that standard procedures will be used, that well known techniques will be used, or paraphrasing the solicitation’s requirements in whole or in part, will NOT constitute compliance. Failure to conform to any of the requirements of the solicitation may form the basis for rejection of the proposal.

Brochuremanship is not desired; clarity, completeness, and conciseness are essential and the overall quality of the proposal will be evaluated in the context of being representative of the Offeror’s services. An Offeror’s proposal is presumed to represent the best efforts to respond to the solicitation.

Only the proposal submitted in response to this solicitation will be evaluated. Offerors should make certain that their proposal is complete with regard to the information provided. Data previously submitted, or presumed to be known, e.g., previous projects performed for the Government, will not be considered in the evaluation unless that information is physically contained in the proposal.

Proposals shall be presented in three (3) separately bound volumes:

Volume I (Technical)

Volume II (Past Performance)

Volume III (Price)

Four (4) hard copies of Volume I; and one (1) hard copy of Volumes II and III shall be provided.

Additionally, one electronic copy each of Volumes I, II and III shall be provided. The electronic copies shall be in either Microsoft Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) and shall be provided on a CD. (Please note that other forms of electronic media, such as USB flash drives, will not be accepted.) If there is a discrepancy between the hard copy and the electronic copy, the hard copy will prevail. Volume I shall not contain any pricing data. The pages are to be typewritten; no less than 1 1/2 line spacing, and no smaller than 12 point type.

Resumes and past performance data may be single-spaced. Volume I shall not exceed 120 pages. Of those 120 pages, the response to the five (5) sample tasks shall not exceed 40 pages total and the individual resumes shall not exceed two (2) pages per resume. All Offeror documentation, such as foldouts, charts, figures, tables, are included in the 120 page limit. Tables of contents, dividers, pages intentionally marked as blank for ease of read and resumes are not included in the 120 page limit. All material in excess of the page limits will neither be read nor evaluated.

Each volume of the proposal shall be clearly marked as to the volume number, the solicitation number, and the

Contractor’s name. Pages shall be numbered consecutively within each volume showing volume and page. For example, page 19 of Volume I would be numbered I-19 and page 10 of Volume II would be numbered II-10.

Offerors are advised that the Government may selectively verify any information provided in the proposal.

Offerors are cautioned that they are responsible to ensure that material that they desire to have evaluated for a particular section is contained in that specific section.

Proposals shall not contain classified material. Any portion of a proposal which the Offeror considers business sensitive should be clearly marked as such in accordance with FAR 52.215-1.

VOLUME I: TECHNICAL

Volume I shall consist of proposal information for evaluation of the Technical Factor. Volume I shall consist of a separate section for each of the below subfactors, addressing the specific solicitation requirements of each subfactor. Offerors are cautioned that they are responsible to ensure that material that they desire to have evaluated for a particular section is contained in that specific section.

To facilitate the evaluation of an Offeror’s compliance with the requirements of the PWS and its capability of meeting those requirements, Offerors shall include the information below in their proposals.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

The technical factor consists of five (5) subfactors, as listed below. Each subfactor has required elements to be demonstrated as detailed below.

SUBFACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH / UNDERSTANDING OF THE PERFORMANCE WORK

STATEMENT (PWS)

The Offeror shall describe in its proposal its overall understanding of and approach to the type of services and material that it would expect to perform and deliver as a result of the award of this contract. The narrative should not be a rephrasing of the PWS, but instead, should concentrate on the Offeror's understanding and approach to the PWS. In this discussion, the Offeror should convey the Offeror’s understanding of the overall requirements of the system elements and scope (both in breadth and depth) of material and work, which are required. The Offeror's proposal should at a minimum discuss the following areas:

1. Understanding of the Military Sealift Command

2. Understanding of and approach to Ship Material Assessment and Readiness Testing

3. Understanding of and approach to technical and engineering support

4. Understanding of regulatory body requirements, including the United States Coast Guard and the

American Bureau of Shipping

The Offeror’s technical approach shall demonstrate its understanding of the PWS; its ability to perform the work; and its capabilities, expertise, and relevant experience.

SUBFACTOR 2 – OVERALL QUALIFICATIONS, KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE AND AVAILABILITY OF

PERSONNEL

The Offeror shall provide biographical data, copies of documentation, licenses and certificates, experience, and resumes for all personnel identified in paragraph 14.3 of the PWS. The resumes should provide a brief summary of the experience relating to the requirements set forth for each labor category identified in paragraph

14.1 of the PWS. If a person is proposed under two or more categories, the resume will be evaluated against each category.

Key personnel must be current employees of the Offeror’s or the Offeror must provide a signed Letter of Intent and resume for each proposed key personnel who is not a current employee of the Offeror’s.

SUBFACTOR 3 - KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE WITH SHIPBOARD SAFETY MANAGEMENT

SYSTEMS

The Offeror shall describe in its proposal its understanding of and approach to supporting MSC’s Safety

Management System. Discuss knowledge and experience with shipboard SMS programs. Also discuss training and experience with internal and external audits. Describe the Offeror’s approach to support the SMS

Designated Person with audits and evaluation of SMS findings.

SUBFACTOR 4 – UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH TO SAMPLE TASKS

The Offeror shall describe in his proposal its understanding of and approach to the five (5) sample tasks set forth in Attachment A-3 (Sample Tasks) of the solicitation.

The discussion for all of the five (5) sample tasks shall not exceed forty (40) pages in length and shall include separately, and at a minimum, the following for each sample task:

1. Understanding of the task.

2. Technical and Management approach.

3. Discussion of Deliverables.

4. Plan of Action and Milestones for completing task.

5. Estimate of man-hours (by labor category) and ODCs.

Additionally, the following task specific information should be provided for each sample task:

1. Sample Task #1: Describe all equipment to be tested and briefly review the testing procedures, including test equipment to be used and data to be collected. Discuss methodology and criteria used to assess machinery operating conditions and efficiencies. Discuss support to other aspects of the SMART inspection program.

2. Sample Task #2: Discuss in detail methodologies used to conduct the Root Cause Analysis

(RCA). Describe investigative and analysis procedures to be used, resource requirements, laboratory analysis requirements, methodology for distinguishing between causal/contributing factors and true root cause, and delivery of findings and recommendations. Discuss pedigree/qualifications of a material analysis lab to be used.

3. Sample Task #3: Describe methodologies to be used to determine evaluation criteria and validate the final test and evaluation plans.

4. Sample Task #4: Describe the analysis procedures to be used in conducting the engineering study.

5. Sample Task #5: Discuss how the equipment test plans are to be developed.

The sample tasks are structured to further demonstrate the Offeror’s technical understanding of the PWS task areas. These sample tasks may or may not be tasks under this contract when awarded. Each sample task will be evaluated on its own merits based on the information contained in this section of the Offeror’s proposal and information contained elsewhere in the proposal will not be considered as part of the evaluation of the sample task.

SUBFACTOR 5 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH/QUALITY CONTROL

The Offeror shall describe its approach for managing the required work. The Offeror shall describe its overall management philosophy, its guiding principles, and the approach it will use to manage engineering tasks and all other work specified in the PWS. The narrative shall address the following:

Demonstration that the Offeror’s staffing (including subcontractors) by functional area will result in full performance at required Contract start date.

Detailed description of key personnel responsibilities and the Offeror’s plan for utilizing key personnel to execute the work described in the PWS.

Corporate reach-back and support providing a seamless management system to include, if applicable, subcontractor management.

Provision of a methodology for hiring, retaining, and replacing employees throughout the period of the

Contract.

Description of Offeror’s procedures for task order management, including planning, executing and closeout; assigning responsibility; managing personnel; tracking deliverables; monitoring progress and obtaining feedback.

Description of the Offeror’s Quality Control System for meeting the PWS requirements.

VOLUME II: PAST PERFORMANCE

Offerors are requested to provide information on up to three (3) Government contracts whose effort is/was recent and relevant to the effort required by this solicitation.

A. “Recent” is defined as a contract in-progress for at least a full year or completed within the last three (3) years. If the offeror has not had three (3) Government contracts within the last three (3) years, information on recent and relevant subcontracts and/or commercial contracts may be submitted.

B. “Relevant” is defined as a contract that is of similar scope, magnitude, and complexity to the requirements as set forth in this solicitation.

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

ii. Magnitude: The measure of the similarity of the volume, dollar value and/or duration of the work actually performed under the Offeror’s submitted contracts to the PWS.

iii. Complexity: The measure of the similarity of technical difficulty, managerial intricacy and/or required coordination of efforts and disciplines performed by the Offeror in its submitted contracts to the PWS. For complexity, not only will the tasks performed by the Offeror be considered, but also the Offeror’s ability to coordinate tasks (e.g., concurrent performance requirements).

A Past Performance Data Sheet is requested to be submitted for each contract to be considered as past performance. Offerors shall provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the similarity of the contracts to the requirements of this solicitation; a detailed description of the work performed for the contract; and the role performed, including whether the Offeror acted as a prime contractor or a subcontractor. Offerors are responsible for the accuracy of all data provided. Past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience and subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement may be provided as past performance submissions.

The past performance evaluation will assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

To develop an overall rating, the Government’s evaluation will take into account relevant information submitted by each offeror as part of its proposal and the Government’s assessment and evaluation of other sources of information. Other sources of information for past performance may include, but are not limited to, Past

Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) reports, the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity

Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Report System (ESRS), other databases, questionnaires and interviews. The following ratings will be used in the past performance evaluation:

RATING DESCRIPTION

ACCEPTABLE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown

UNACCEPTABLE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

(1) The Government will consider the recency and relevancy of past performance information compared to the requirements detailed in the PWS, the source of the information, the context of the data and general trends in the offeror’s performance and any associated risk.

(2) The Government will consider the extent of the offeror’s ability to perform a previous contract successfully in the areas of; (a) quality of product or services; (b) timeliness or scheduling of supplies/deliveries; (c) business relations/customer satisfaction; and (d) key personnel and staffing

(including subcontractors).

(3) The Government will consider the company itself, predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience and subcontractors who will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.

(4) For all offerors, the Government will consider historical compliance with the requirements of FAR Part

52.219-8 (Utilization of Small Business Concerns).

In accordance with FAR 15.305(a) (2) (iv), an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

For each of the contracts the Offeror describes in a Performance Data Sheet, the Offeror is requested to provide a Past Performance Questionnaire to a reference at the organization that awarded the contract. It is requested that the reference, not the Offeror, email or mail the completed Past Performance Questionnaire BEFORE THE

DUE DATE FOR PROPOSALS directly to Christina McCloud at christina.mccloud@navy.mil or Military

Sealift Command, 471 C Street, Naval Station Norfolk, VA 23511-2419, e-mail; Fax submittals will not be considered. The Offeror, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, is responsible for ensuring that the Government receives a sufficient number of questionnaires.

All Offerors are required to address historical compliance with the requirements of FAR Part 52.219-8

(Utilization of Small Business Concerns) in the Past Performance Data Sheet (Attachment A-4).

VOLUME III: PRICE

In accordance with Class Deviation 2018-O0006, Offerors shall complete the Rate Table (Attachment VIII) to be included in their proposal submission. While price will not be utilized as an evaluation factor at the base

IDIQ level, the rates provided will be used to lock Offerors into maximum rates for the duration of the IDIQ.

SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS

The below mentioned sections shall be incorporated under Volume I of the proposal. The below mentioned pages will not count toward the page number limit.

Section A – Proposal Cover Letter

In accordance with FAR Part FAR 52.215-1(c) (2), the following information shall be provided on the proposal cover letter:

Authorized Offeror Personnel: Provide the name, title, telephone number, facsimile number, and e-mail address of the individual who can obligate your company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government and who can answer questions regarding your proposal.

Company/Division Street Address: Provide company/division’s street address and size of business (large or small).

DUNS Number/CAGE Code: Provide Company/Division’s Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code.

mailto:christina.mccloud@navy.mil

Section B – Signed SF 1449, Acknowledge Amendments (if applicable), and Other Documents

Include in this section a signed SF 1449 and completed Representations and Certifications in FAR 52.212-3.

Offerors must also acknowledge receipt of all RFP amendments.

For Representations and Certifications, the Offeror must maintain a complete Online Representations and

Certifications through the System for Award Management (SAM) at www.acquisition.gov. All other provisions required by the solicitation, but not included in SAM, are to be completed and submitted with the proposal.

Items which are not applicable should be marked “N/A.”

Section C – U.S. / Canada Joint Certification Program (JCP)

Per section 15.2.2 of the PWS, the contractor must be a certified contractor in the U.S. / Canada Joint

Certification Program (JCP). Prospective offerors must provide proof of JCP certification (DD-2345), or proof of DD-2345 submission and expected date of certification as part of the proposal submission package.

Award will not be made to any offeror who is not a JCP certified contractor.

Section D – Exceptions to the RFP (if applicable)

Offerors are to clearly detail any exceptions taken and the rationale for the exceptions taken to the RFP in this section. Please note that exceptions taken to the RFP may render the Offeror’s proposal unacceptable to the

Government.

QUESTIONS

Questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted by e-mail to christina.mccloud@navy.mil and david.g.foster@navy.mil. No verbal questions will be accepted. All questions must be submitted in writing to the aforementioned email addresses. All questions must be received by MSC Norfolk no later than 12:00 PM local time, Norfolk, VA on 19 February 2018.

NOTICE OF AWARD

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 contract without further action by either party.

Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer, whether or not there are negotiations after.

(End of Provision)

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

(a) Basis for Award. The Government will award a multiple award IDIQ to all responsible offerors who submit a proposal that is deemed technically acceptable with acceptable past performance. Each Offeror will be evaluated on its understanding of the requirements and its ability to perform the requirements listed in the PWS.

The Government intends to award without discussions. Pursuant to FAR 52.215-1(f) (4), however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

An Offeror must be found technically acceptable in each Factor and Sub-factor to be considered for award. Any proposal with a rating of 'Unacceptable' or for any sub-factor will result in the appropriate Factor being rated

'Unacceptable' or ‘Marginal’. Any offer rated 'Unacceptable' or ‘Marginal’ for any Factor may be ineligible for award, or may be excluded from the competitive range.

mailto:christina.mccloud@navy.mil mailto:david.g.foster@navy.mil

The Government will review the information required by the RFP to determine whether the Offeror has met the minimum submission requirements.

The Government will determine award by evaluating the following criteria:

1. Factor 1 – Technical Approach

a. Subfactor 1: Technical Approach/Understanding of PWS

b. Subfactor 2: Overall Qualifications, Knowledge, Experience, and Availability of

Personnel

c. Subfactor 3: Knowledge and Experience with Shipboard Safety Management

d. Subfactor 4: Understanding and Approach to Sample Tasks

e. Subfactor 5: Management Approach/Quality Assurance

2. Factor 2 – Past Performance

The factors are considered equal in weight. Award will be made to each and all qualifying offerors under this solicitation.

An overall rating will be assigned to each of the factors as a result of the source selection evaluation. At the base

IDIQ level, all factors and subfactors will be rated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. If any subfactor is deemed unacceptable, the entire factor will be deemed unacceptable. Award will not be made to any offeror whose proposal is deemed technically unacceptable.

At the Task Order level, award will be made on a best value basis utilizing the tradeoff method, evaluating a combination of technical approach, past performance, price, and other relevant factors unless evaluation of a particular Task Order using Low Price - Technically Acceptable procedures is determined to be in the best interests of the Government.

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

Subfactor 1: Technical Approach/Understanding of PWS.

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s technical approach to and understanding of the PWS, the

Offeror’s ability to perform the work, and any associated risks. The proposal will be evaluated on the content and completeness of the technical approach and responsiveness to the requirements in the RFP.

The evaluation will include an analysis of the Offeror’s capabilities, expertise, and relevant experience. The approaches described in each of the areas under

52.212-1 represent an achievable means of accomplishing the work.

Subfactor 2: Overall Qualifications, Knowledge, Experience, and Availability of the Key Personnel.

The Government will evaluate the overall Qualifications, Knowledge, Experience, and Availability of Key

Personnel.

Subfactor 3: Knowledge and Experience with Shipboard Safety Management Systems.

The Offeror shall describe in his proposal his understanding of and approach to supporting MSC’s Safety

Management System. Discuss knowledge and experience with shipboard SMS programs. Also discuss training and experience with internal and external audits. Describe the Offeror’s approach to support the

SMS Designated Person with audits and evaluation of SMS findings.

Subfactor 4: Understanding and Approach to Sample Tasks.

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s understanding of and approach to the sample tasks. Each sample task will receive a separate rating based upon the five general information requirements listed below, which must be addressed for each task. The ratings for the five (5) sample tasks are of equal importance and will be rolled into one overall rating for Subfactor (2).

1. Understanding of the task.

2. Technical and Management approach.

3. Discussion of Deliverables.

4. Plan of Action and Milestones for completing task.

5. Estimate of man-hours (by labor category) and ODCs.

Additionally, each sample task will receive a separate rating based upon the following task specific information requirements provided below:

1. Sample Task #1: Describe all equipment to be tested and briefly review the testing procedures, including test equipment to be used and data to be collected. Discuss methodology and criteria used to assess machinery operating conditions and efficiencies.

Discuss support to other aspects of the SMART inspection program.

2. Sample Task #2: Discuss in detail methodologies used to conduct the Root Cause

Analysis (RCA). Describe investigative and analysis procedures to be used, resource requirements, laboratory analysis requirements, methodology for distinguishing between causal/contributing factors and true root cause, and delivery of findings and recommendations. Discuss pedigree/qualifications of a material analysis lab to be used.

3. Sample Task #3: Describe methodologies to be used to determine evaluation criteria and validate the final test and evaluation plans.

4. Sample Task #4: Describe the analysis procedures to be used in conducting the engineering study.

5. Sample Task #5: Discuss how the equipment test plans are to be developed.

The ratings for the five (5) sample tasks are of equal importance and will be rolled into one overall rating for Subfactor (3).

Subfactor 5: Management Approach/Quality Control.

The Offeror shall describe its approach for managing the required work. The Offeror shall describe its overall management philosophy, its guiding principles, and the approach it will use to manage engineering tasks and all other work specified in the PWS. The narrative shall address the following:

o Demonstration that the Offeror’s staffing (including subcontractors) by functional area will result in full performance at required Contract start date.

o Detailed description of key personnel responsibilities and the Offeror’s plan for utilizing key personnel to execute the work described in the PWS.

o Corporate reach-back and support providing a seamless management system to include, if applicable, subcontractor management.

o Provision of a methodology for hiring, retaining, and replacing employees throughout the period of the Contract.

o Description of Offeror’s procedures for task order management, including planning, executing and closeout; assigning responsibility; managing personnel; tracking deliverables; monitoring progress and obtaining feedback.

o Description of the Offeror’s Quality Control System for meeting the PWS requirements.

Factor 2 – Past Performance

The past performance evaluation will assess the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

To develop an overall rating, the Government’s evaluation will take into account relevant information submitted by each Offeror as part of its proposal and the Government’s assessment and evaluation of other sources of information. Other sources of information for past performance may include, but are not limited to, Past

Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) reports, the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity

Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Report System (ESRS), other databases, questionnaires and interviews.

(1) The Government will consider the recency and relevancy of past performance information compared to the requirements detailed in the PWS, the source of the information, the context of the data and general trends in the Offeror’s performance and any associated risk.

(2) The Government will consider the extent of the Offeror’s ability to perform a previous contract successfully in the areas of; (a) quality of product or services; (b) timeliness or scheduling of supplies/deliveries; (c) business relations/customer satisfaction; and (d) key personnel and staffing (including subcontractors).

(3) The Government will consider the company itself, predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience and subcontractors who will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.

(4) For all Offerors, the Government will consider historical compliance with the requirements of FAR Part

52.219-8 (Utilization of Small Business Concerns).

The Government reserves the right to consider Past Performance Questionnaires received after the due date for receipt of proposals. The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information and the right to consider other relevant past performance information. The Government may call customers, whether or not provided by the Offeror, to inquire about the Offeror’s past performance. The

Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure the problems it finds with the information provided by the Offeror. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the Offeror.

In accordance with FAR 15.305(a) (2) (iv), an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)