N39040-15-T-0221-0002.pdf

N3904015RQ50220

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 continuation page(s).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 10

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-Jun-2015

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 N39040-15-T-0221

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

21-May-2015

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

02-Jun-2015

CODE

PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD

CODE 410

KITTERY ME 03904

N39040 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N39040-15-T-0221

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0002 CHANGES

The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate FAR Clause 52.222-42 “Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal

Hires”, amend Sections L and M and to provide an answer to a vendor submitted question as follows:

Q. In reference to the subject solicitation, the Wage Determination provided with Amendment 0001 of the subject solicitation does not adequately cover both the scope of work called out in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of the solicitation nor the compensation for the PNS industrial activity. The pedigree of welder called out in the solicitation far exceeds that which is called out in the DoL labor description. Also, this work is typically performed at the WG-10 Step 4 level (journeyman). Please amend the solicitation to reflect the expectations for personnel pedigree and compensation.

A. The Wage Determination provided by the Department of Labor establishes a minimum hourly rate that must be paid to all workers in any classificiation listed on the wage determination for all hours spent performing on the contract. Please see FAR Clause 52.222-42 for the Equivalent Rate for a Federal Hire.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged and in full effect.

52.222-42 STATEMENT OF EQUIVALENT RATES FOR FEDERAL HIRES (MAY 2014)

In compliance with the Service Contract Labor Standards statute and the regulations of the Secretary of Labor (29

CFR part 4), this clause identifies the classes of service employees expected to be employed under the contract and states the wages and fringe benefits payable to each if they were employed by the contracting agency subject to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5341 or 5332.

THIS STATEMENT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY: IT IS NOT A WAGE DETERMINATION

Employee Class Monetary Wage-Fringe Benefits

WG-10

(End of clause)

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 05-Jun-2015 12:00 PM to 10-Jun-2015 12:00 PM.

The following have been modified:

SECTION L

SUBMISSION OF QUOTATION (Best Value)

I. GENERAL

In addition to instructions to offerors contained elsewhere in this solicitation, the following instructions are provided.

Initial quotations and any modifications thereto are to be submitted to the Contracting Officer on or before the closing date and time cited elsewhere in this Request for Quotations. Faxes, and/or responses through FBO are not acceptable.

Hand-carried quotations are not encouraged. The Contracting Office is located on a secured compound. Only personnel with current DoD Common Access Cards (CACs) or appropriate military credentials will be able to access the compound. There will be no ability to drop off the Quotations outside the compound.

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1

I. GENERAL

This acquisition uses a simplified and streamlined process as authorized under FAR 13.5, Test Program for Certain

Commercial Items. The quotation package shall consist of:

(1) Factor I – Technical

(2) Factor II- Past Performance

(3) Factor III – Price

IMPORTANT NOTES:

(1) In order to ensure that all questions submitted by potential quoters are answered prior to the solicitation closing date, one consolidated list of questions concerning the solicitation should be submitted via e-mail to the contracting point of contact, Andrea M. Gleason at andrea.gleason@navy.mil no later than 12:00 pm, Eastern Standard Time (EST), on 03 June 2015. The Government reserves the right not to respond to any questions received concerning this solicitation after the questions receipt date above. Accordingly, quoters are encouraged to carefully review all solicitation requirements and submit questions to the Government early in the quote timeframe.

(2) Quotations are due by the date and time shown in Block 8 of the RFQ; and are to be submitted via one of the following methods:

If sent using United States Postal Services:

Contracting Department

Attn: Andrea Gleason, Code, 410

Trailer 184D

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard

Kittery, ME. 03904

Electronic Mail (E-Mail):

Andrea.gleason@navy.mil

Fax: 207-438-4193

II. REQUIREMENTS FOR QUOTATION CONTENT

1. Proposal content and instructions when submitting a proposal shall consisting of:

a. Technical Approach mailto:andrea.gleason@navy.mil mailto:Andrea.gleason@navy.mil

Sub-factor I, Performance Approach

Sub-factor II, Management Approach

b. Past Performance Information

c. Price Submission

d. Acknowledgement of any amendments.

Proposal Page Limitations: The following page Limitations are established for the proposal submitted in response to this solicitation:

Volume Title Page Limit

Volume I Non-Price Proposal

Factor I Non-Price Proposal Technical Approach 25 Pages

Sub-Factor I Non-Price Proposal-Performance Approach

Sub-Factor II Non-Price Proposal-Management Approach

Factor II Non-Price Proposal-Past Performance 12 Pages

Volume II Price Proposal Unlimited

All submission and attachments shall be in Microsoft compatible format. Submissions that are page limited to the maximum number of pages as defined with each volume. These page limitations are inclusive of the executive summary and any charts, diagrams, and/or other graphics. Graphics (including tables) in the proposal may use an alternative font with 8 point size type or larger. Each “page” is defined as one sheet, 8 ½” x 11”, with at least one inch margins on all sides, using a font with a point size of 12 or greater (e.g., “Times New Roman” style with 12 point font). Offeror submissions shall not include hyperlinks. Lines shall, at a minimum, be single-spaced. Pages shall be consecutively numbered. Multiple pages, double pages, two-sided pages, or foldouts will count as equivalent number of 8 ½” x 11” pages. The cover sheet, compliance matrix, table of contents (not to exceed one page per volume), tabs, and dividers will not count toward the page limit. Pages submitted in excess of the page limitations described above will not be evaluated.

PROPOSAL CONTENT AND INSTRUCTIONS

Volume I Non-Price Proposal Factor I Technical Approach

The Technical Approach must include at a minimum the information listed below.

Sub-Factor I – Performance Approach:

The offeror's Performance Approach shall demonstrate a thorough understanding of, as well as its ability to implement and execute, the PWS. The Offeror’s performance approach shall describe the criteria the offeror will use to ensure the personnel supplied meet the qualification requirements of the contract. Included in the Performance

Plan shall be a sample qualification/training record showing the minimum training, qualifications, and experience level, including experience on naval vessels, the offeror would present as suitable to meet the requirements of the

PWS.

*Note: Offerors simply providing general statement or paraphrasing/parroting the PWS in whole or in any part shall result in rating of unacceptable

Sub-Factor II - Management Approach

The offeror shall provide a Management Approach that describes the management controls, techniques and procedures that will be used to ensure required work is performed in a timely, responsive, professional and efficient manner.

The offeror shall identify any risks associated with implementation of the offerors management approach. The offeror should describe any techniques and actions to mitigate such risks; and explain whether the techniques and actions identified for risk mitigation have been successfully used by the offeror.

As part of its Management Approach, the offeror shall also provide a general staffing plan that demonstrates an understanding of the skill sets required to successfully accomplish the tasks of the PWS. The plan should explain how the offeror will utilize its personnel resources in the performance of the contract, as well as how the offeror plans to minimize employee turnover.

Volume I Non-Price Proposal Factor II - Past Performance

In order to facilitate the Government’s evaluation of this factor, the Offeror shall provide up to three (3) of its most relevant contracts that have been performed within the past five (5) years. Evaluation will focus only on work experience already performed. Yet-to-be performed work and experience prior to the last five (5) years will not be considered. For each contract submitted, offerors should provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the relevance of the contracts or efforts to the requirement of the PWS. The information must be clear whether the work by the

Offeror was done as a prime contractor or a subcontractor. If subcontractor experience is provided as part of the

THREE most relevant contracts, it will be given weight relative to the percentage of effort being provided by the particular subcontractor in the offer submitted.

The following minimum information shall be provided within the contractor submitted references:

-Contract Number/Delivery Order Number

-Contract Type

-Annual Contract Cost

-Description of Work

-Valid Name, Phone Number and E-mail Address of Contracting Officer and Contracting Officer's

Representative/Task Order Manager.

In the description of work, Offerors should provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the similarity of the contracts in terms of scope, complexity, and magnitude, to the requirements of the RFP for purposes of the relevancy.

Past performance as a prime contractor on Federal contracts/orders, especially DoD, will be preferred over and scored higher than past performance on state and local government and commercial contracts/orders. Submit

Federal, then state and local government, or commercial contracts/orders, in that order of preference, to complete this submission. Past performance as the prime contractor will be preferred over and scored higher than past performance as a subcontractor.

Vendors who describe similar contracts and subcontracts should provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the similarity of the contracts, in terms of scope and magnitude, to the requirements of the RFQ for purposes of the relevancy review. This information shall be provided by the submission of Attachment I - Past Performance

Information Form. The data sheet shall be completed in its entirety and one copy submitted 5 days prior to the closing date of the solicitation. Failure to submit the completed questionnaire, or comparable format, shall be considered certification (by signature on the quote) that the contractor has no relevant past performance. In addition to the information requested above, vendors shall contact their past performance references and request that each reference complete Attachment II "Past Performance Report Form" and fax or e-mail the completed survey form directly to Andrea M. Gleason. Contracting Division, Building 153, 6th flr, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, ME. 03904, e-mail: andrea.gleason@navy.mil, Fax Number: 207-438-4193, BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF THIS

SOLICITATION. The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information.

Volume II Price Proposal

The Price submission shall include a complete and detailed breakdown (including all labor categories and associate costs) with all supporting documentation. The price submission should include all elements of price and other information as appropriate to support the proposed price. The price submission is not page limited, but is strictly limited to price information.

The submission shall include:

1. Separate price breakdown for the performance period.

2. Supporting information including labor mix.

SECTION M

Evaluation of Quotations

The Government intends to evaluate quotations and issue an award using the procedures of FAR 13.106 and 13.5.

The Technical Approach and Past Performance factors along with their respective sub-factors comprise the overall non-price factor. The Government considers Technical Approach to be more important than past performance. The two techncial approach sub-factors (Performance Approach and Management Approach) are weighted equally. After the Technical Approach sub-factors and Past Performance have been evaluated, a combined overall Non-Price

Factor rating will be assigned. The Overall Non-Price Factor is more important than Price.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate proposals:

Factor I – Technical

Sub-Factor I, Performance Approach: Offeror’s performance approach will be evaluated on its feasibility, comprehensiveness and the degree to which the offeror demonstrates how each of the requirements identified in the

PWS will be successfully accomplished. The offeror’s performance approach also will be evaluated on how well its key personnel meet or exceed the key personnel qualifications found in the PWS, including experience on naval vessels.

Sub-Factor II, Management Approach: The Offeror will be evaluated on its ability to present a Management approach that clearly describes the management controls, techniques and procedures that will be used to ensure required work is performed in a timely, responsive, professional and efficient manner. The Offeror’s management approach will be evaluated on the offeror’s identification of risks and the proposed techniques and actions to mitigate risks. The Offeror will be evaluated on its proposed staffing plan and the plan’s utilization of personnel resources and its demonstrated capability to provide personnel with the skill sets required to successfully accomplish the requirements set forth in the PWS.

*Offerors simply providing general statements or paraphrasing/parroting the PWS in whoe or in any part may result in a letter grade rating conducive of potential weaknesses and/or deficiencies.

The rating table identified below entitled “Technical Ratings Table” will be utilized for the assignment of ratings.

Risk assessed the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed Technical Approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased

Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will be considered in the evaluation of Technical Approach and its requisite elements.

A combined Technical/Risk Rating will be utilized in the evaluation of the Technical Approach. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations will utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in the ratings tables.

*Note: A rating of “Marginal” for any Technical factor or sub-factor means that the vendor’s proposal is not awardable without a change or changes to the vendor’s proposal. A proposal which includes a “Marginal” rating is not eligible for award if award is made on initial offers. Offerors that receive a “Marginal” rating are considered to be susceptible to correction if the Contracting Officer determines that an exchange is appropriate and said exchange is conducted.

**Note: Offerors receiving a rating of “Unacceptable” for any Technical factor or sub-factor will not be considered for an award and will not be further evaluated.

Factor II - Past Performance

Past performance will be evaluated based on relevancy and confidence.

For the Non-Price Factor II-Past Performance, the rating tables identified below entitled “Performance Relevancy

Ratings Table” and “Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Table” will be utilized for the assignment of ratings for relevancy and confidence assessment. Past Performance will be evaluated for confidence based on the relevance and quality of the submitted contracts.

Past Performance will be assessed as follows:

Evaluation will focus only on work experience already performed. Work yet-to-be performed, and work prior to the last 5 years, will not be considered. In addition, performance data will only be assessed for those references demonstrating at least 1 year of completed performance prior to the closing date of the solicitation.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings – Regarding relevancy, each past performance reference under each offeror’s

Past Performance submission will be evaluated to determine its individual scope, complexity and magnitude relative to the instant requirement. The following definitions will apply to this evaluation:

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

Complexity: The measure of similarity of technical and managerial intricacy and required coordination of efforts and disciplines that exists between the PWS and the vendor’s other contracts.

Magnitude: The measure of the similarity of the dollar value of actually performed work, individually or in the aggregate, which exists between the PWS and the offeror’s references.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. However, the past performance submittal of an offeror with no relevant past performance history, while not rated favorably or unfavorably for past performance, may not represent the most advantageous offeror to the Government. In this instance, the offeror will receive a rating of “Not Relevant” in the relevancy rating factor.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings – The overall assigned rating for past performance will be the

Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The assignment of this rating will be based on the quality of the relevant past performance and will also consider the currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, the context of the data, and general trends in the vendor’s performance. The quality of performance under a past performance reference that that has no relevance to the instant requirement will not be considered in the overall assessment of past performance confidence. This consideration and rating is separate and distinct from the contracting officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the vendor’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the relative capability of the vendor and other competitors to successfully meet the requirements of the solicitation. In determining the rating for the past performance factor, the Government will give greater consideration to the contracts which the Government feels are most relevant to the RFQ.

Overall Non-Price Proposal Evaluation Rating

Upon completion of the Non-price Sub-factor evaluation, a composite rating for the overall Non-Price Factor will be assigned to each offeror’s proposal. The assignment of this overall rating will be in consideration of the comparative weightings of the Technical Approach and the Past Performance Non-price sub-factors and their respective information using the “Technical Ratings Table” listed in the solicitation

Factor III – Price

The vendor’s proposed price will be evaluated on the basis of price reasonableness. The evaluation may include, but is not limited to:

a. Price Comparison with other Offerors;

b. Comparison to Independent Government Estimates

Offerors responding to this solicitation are advised that, prior to award, the government may request vendors to submit information/data to support price reasonableness such as copies of paid invoices for the same or similar items, sales history for the same or similar items, price list with effective date and/or copies of catalog pages along with any applicable discounts. Failure to submit the requested information may result in disqualification of the submitted proposal

Establishment of a competitive range is not anticipated; however, the Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range if determined by the Procuring Contracting Officer to be in the best interest of the Government.

The method of evaluation used by the Contracting Officer is solely within the discretion of the Contracting Officer.

Options:The Government will evaluate proposals for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Written Notice: A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful

Offeror within the time of 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 (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Although price is the not the most important evaluation factor, it has the potential to become more significant during the evaluation process. The degree of importance of price will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based. The importance of price will also increase when a vendor's price is so significantly high as to diminish the value to the Government that might be gained under the other aspects of the offer. If, at any stage of the evaluation, all offerors are determined to have submitted equal, or virtually equal, proposals, price could become the factor in determining which offerors shall receive the award.

Technical Rating Table

These ratings will be used in the evaluation of the Technical Factor and its Sub-Factors.

TABLE 1

Color Rating Description

BLUE Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

PURPLE Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

GREEN Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

YELLOW Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

RED Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

DEFINITIONS:

Strength - 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.

Significant Weakness - A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency - 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.

Risk – (as it pertains to source selection) 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 its sub-factors 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.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

TABLE 2

Rating Description

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

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

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

TABLE 3

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.

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.

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

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.

(End of Summary of Changes)