N3220522R4024 0004.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 subject amendment is due to the Scope in FAR 52.212-2, Factor II - Past Performance, Paragraph (4)(a) changing from "Experience operating, manning, and maintaining the same number of ships," to "Experience in the areas defined in the Performance Work Statement

(PWS)." This amendment hereby extends the solicitation closing date of proposals for Volume III - Past Performance (only) to Wednesday, 22 Mar 2023 at 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time (EST).

If changes are not necessary, or are not received by Wednesday, 22 March 2023 at 5:00 PM EST, the previously submitted Volume III - Past

Performance w ill be evaluated. If changes are made to Volume III, a signed SF30 of Amendment 0004 must also be submitted.

No changes to Volumes I, II, or IV w ill be accepted or evaluated.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-Mar-2023

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 N3220522R4024

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-Oct-2022

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer 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 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

15-Mar-2023

CODE

MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND NORFOLK

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

NORFOLK VA 23511

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N3220522R4024

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 11-Jan-2023 05:00 PM to 22-Mar-2023 05:00 PM.

The following have been modified:

52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Items (Oct 2014) (ADDENDUM)

a. Basis for Award. The Government will award, if at all, a single, Firm-Fixed-Price contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer represents the best value to the Government after an evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to issue an award based upon initial offers but may, after evaluation of initial offers, limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to allow for an efficient competition in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2).

b. The Government may evaluate each Offeror’s ability to meet the requirements of the solicitation. The

Government may evaluate each Offeror’s proposed costs for reasonableness. Pursuant to FAR 52.212-1(g), the

Government intends to award without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made.

c. Relative Weight. The non-price Factors 1 (Technical) and 2 (Past Performance) are equal and, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3, Price. Price itself will not be ranked; it will stand on its own as the non-price factors approach equality between proposals, price becomes significantly more important. The Technical factor consists of two Sub-factors, which are weighted equally. The Sub-Factors will be rolled up to form the basis of the overall Technical factor rating. A rating of “unacceptable” in either Sub-factor will result in an overall technical rating of “unacceptable.”

d. In order to determine the offer providing the best value, a tradeoff process of the following factors will be conducted:

Factor 1 – Technical

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor 3 – Price

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

Factor 1 – Technical

Factor I - Technical and its Sub-factors will be evaluated utilizing the Combined Technical/Risk Ratings in the table below. The offeror will be evaluated to determine whether the technical approach meets the requirements of the

PWS. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed technical approach for the following criteria:

Sub-factor 1: Technical Approach

The offeror will be evaluated to determine whether the technical approach meets the requirements of the PWS.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed technical approach for the following criteria:

i. Offeror provided an Advertising/Marketing Plan that addresses all strategies for nationwide advertising and marketing in order to meet MSC’s annual Civil Service Mariner (CIVMAR) hiring requirements and Recruiting Strategy Plan and Schedule of Events that support MSC’s

CSMP manning requirements to generate qualified leads, prospective candidates for career fairs, and academy recruitment.

ii. Offeror provided an approach for the operation of the 24/7 CIVMAR Support Center

(CSC)/call center that is capable of answering phone calls and emails that range from answering simple questions, to assisting CIVMARs who need help or advice on travel, or referring complex matters to appropriate the government representative. The approach identifies how the Contractor is capable of supporting an employee workforce of over

5,000 CIVMARs both during normal work hours and after hours.

iii. Offeror provided an approach for the full spectrum of the employment process, beginning with first contact with prospective employees through hire, initial new employee orientation and processing, as well as publicizing and assisting with the administration of current-employee promotion board processes.

Sub-factor 2: Staffing Plan

The offeror described how it will establish and maintain staff to meet the requirements of this contract.

This includes a staffing plan and organization chart detailing the number of employees per area/location. The offeror included a staffing plan for the CSC. The staffing plans include Points of

Contact (POC) which meet the requirements of the PWS. CSC personnel proposed have a minimum two (2) years demonstrated experience in the use of automated information systems/programs (such as but not limited to Microsoft Word, Excel, Power Point, or any other call center program). If the offeror has existing staff, facilities, and infrastructure that can appropriately meet the needs of this contract, the proposal describes how these will be modified (if necessary) and/or maintained to ensure the requirements of this contract can be met. The staffing plan details an effective approach for managing the phase in period.

Table 1: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Table

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple 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.

Green Acceptable

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

Yellow Marginal

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

Red 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.

Factor II – Past Performance

(1) An overall adjectival rating will be assigned to the Past Performance factor as a result of the source selection evaluation in accordance with the confidence rating table for past performance.

(2) The Past Performance evaluation will assess the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that offeror’s record of relevant past performance.

The Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal (e.g. Attachment I) in addition to data obtained from other sources such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), CPARS, etc. Additionally, the Past Performance Evaluation Team may contact references provided in offeror’s submitted narratives (Attachment I) to request information to determine the quality of Offeror’s performance.

(3) Recency Assessment. An assessment of each past performance effort will be made to determine if it is recent.

To be recent, the effort must have been completed within seven years of the date this solicitation closes. A past performance effort that is not recent will not be further evaluated.

(4) Relevancy Assessment: An assessment of each past performance effort for which the Government is able to obtain information regarding quality of performance, including those completed by joint ventures, affiliates, and/or subcontractors that meet the definition of a “segment” in FAR Part 2, will be made to determine if it is relevant. The Government may consider past performance of: the company itself, predecessor, parent, and sister companies, and subcontractors that will perform significant or critical aspects of the requirement. Contracts that are most similar to the effort in the Section C, in terms of scope, complexity, and magnitude will be considered most relevant.

a. Scope: Experience in the areas defined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

b. Complexity: Similarity of technical difficulty, managerial complexity, and/or required coordination of efforts and disciplines performed by the offeror and any subcontractors to the requirements outlined in the solicitation.

c. Magnitude: The measure of the similarity of the volume, dollar value and duration of the work actually performed under the offeror’s submitted contracts to the Section C.

Relevancy: This factor will be evaluated using the rating provided below:

RELEVANCY 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.

d. Past Performance Ratings. The evaluation of past performance will review the recency, relevancy, and quality of the offeror’s performance, using the information outlined above. The government will consider quality of performance, which includes past compliance with FAR 52.219-8 and compliance with Small Business Subcontracting plans submitted to the government in the last 5 years pursuant to

FAR 52.219-9. Based on the totality of all past performance efforts, an overall Past Performance

Confidence adjectival rating will be assigned as follows:

CONFIDENCE RATING TABLE FOR PAST PERFORMANCE

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 recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports 1) a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation factor or sub-factor; or 2) any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system that cause evaluator concern. When a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the

Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. In accordance with FAR 15.306(b)(4), communications must be held with any offeror who will be excluded from competition because of adverse past performance information, unless the offeror has previously had the opportunity to comment on such information.

Offerors without a record of relevant and recent past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably nor unfavorably, and as a result, will receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating for this factor.

Factor III – Price

The Government will evaluate price proposals in accordance with FAR Part 15.

The Government may evaluate any and all information submitted by the offeror to support the reasonableness of the prices proposed. The method of evaluation used by the Contracting Officer is solely within the discretion of the Contracting Officer.

All options will be evaluated pursuant to solicitation provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options. The

Government will evaluate offerors for award purposes by adding the price for the option to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of the option shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option.

Written Notice

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer will be emailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the proposal shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offeror’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)