N39040-16-R-0001-0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to provide answ ers to submitted questions and to revise the Technical Approach Evaluation Factor language on page 80 of the original solicitation.

See continuation page(s).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 16-Nov-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 N39040-16-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Nov-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 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-Nov-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:

N39040-16-R-0001

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 0001:

Q1. Is this a small business set-aside?

A1. Yes, this is a 100% total small business set-aside.

Q2. The Solicitation does not reference any wage determination. Please confirm that Service Contract Act is not applicable to this solicitation/future contract.

A2. The Service Contract Act is not applicable to this solicitation or future contract.

Q3. Please specify the length of the Phase-In Period.

A3. The anticipated period between contract award and expected performance of the task order is one month.

Q4. Would Phase-in costs be reimbursable?

A4. Costs that are allowable, reasonable and allocable in accordance with FAR Part 31 will be reimbursable.

Q5. Will the Government provide an Inventory List of the existing items in the Government furnished Tool Crib?

(Page 24 of the RFP)?

A5. No, an Inventory List will not be provided. Power Tools and specialty tools such as torque wrenches, calipers, verniers and electrical multi-meters are supplied by the Tool Crib. Contracted employees are expected to provide their own simple hand tools (ratchets, wrenches, screwdrivers, etc). Personnel that require respirators need to provide their own respirators which they are qualified for. The Shipyard will provide fall protection for those that require it.

Q6. Please explain how the existing facility management contract will impact the work/cost under this procurement?

(page 24 paragraph (c))

A6. The existing facility management contract will have no impact on the requirements to be performed under the eventual contract or task orders.

Q7. Are vehicles required for performance? Will the Government provide any vehicles?

A7. Vehicles are not required for performance.The Government will not provide any vehicles.

Q8. Will the Government allow for a site-visit at the PNSY Kittery, Maine location?

A8. No site visit will be scheduled.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A contract will be awarded to that responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the Best Value after evaluation in accordance with the factors described herein. “Factors” and “Subfactors” shall include all of these evaluation factors and subfactors which are described in Section M.

This solicitation is restricted to Small Businesses for the total direct labor cost, at the first tier, as described herein.

Offers from Small Businesses concerns must demonstrate that no single subcontractor will perform more than the

Small Business Prime.

General:

1. It is the intention of the Navy to award one cost-plus-fixed-fee Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) with one base year and two option years for a total of three (3) years to provide touch labor support services to

PNSY.

2. Award will be made to that Offeror whose proposal is the most advantageous to the Government under the selection criteria set forth in this Section M.

3. The Government intends to award a contract based upon initial proposals. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint. However, the Government may contact any or all or a limited number of awardees with questions concerning their responses as permitted under

FAR Part 16.

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

a. The following conditions must be met in order to be eligible for award:

(1) The proposal must comply in all material respects with the requirements of the law, regulation and conditions set forth in this solicitation.

(2) The proposal must meet all solicitation requirements.

b. The Government reserves the right to make an award without discussions.

c. The award decision will be determined based on the Government’s evaluation of each Offeror’s complete proposal against the evaluation factors identified below. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal demonstrates the best overall value to the Government based on the factors described herein. Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement (FAR 2.101). In making this decision, the Government is more concerned with obtaining offers demonstrating superior technical merit based on the non-cost (Technical Capability, Management

Approach and Past Performance) factors at a reasonable cost or price than with making an award to the Offeror with the lowest proposed cost/price. Accordingly, the Government may be willing to pay a reasonable premium for a contract offering superior technical merit.

d. In order to select the successful Offeror, the Government will compare Offeror’s proposals. The comparison will trade off differences in technical merit based on the non-cost factors and Total Evaluated Cost (TEC). If one Offeror has both the better technical merit or capability and the lower TEC, than that Offeror will be the better value. If one

Offeror has the better technical merit or capability and a higher TEC, then the Government will decide whether the difference in technical merit/capability is worth the difference in TEC. If it is determined that the difference in technical merit/capability is worth the difference in TEC, then the more capable, higher-priced Offeror will be the better value. If not, then the less capable, lower-priced Offeror will be the better value. A TEC will not be developed and best value analysis will not be performed for any Offerors who are unacceptable or unsatisfactory in any factor and award will not be made to any Offeror who is unacceptable or unsatisfactory in any factor..

Note 1: Awards will only be made to an Offeror that has no organizational conflict of interest as defined in FAR 9.5 or that the Government determines has provided a satisfactory mitigation plan. Offerors are advised that technical proposals may be evaluated without consideration of any proposed subcontractor which is deemed to have an OCI and for which an unsatisfactory mitigation plan has been proposed.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

2.1 Application of Factors and Subfactors

(a) General: Proposals shall be evaluated in accordance with the factors described below. The evaluation factors represent key areas of importance to be considered in the source selection decision. The factors and associated elements have been chosen to support meaningful discrimination between and among competing proposals. As demonstrated in their proposals, prospective Offerors shall be evaluated in terms of their ability to meet or exceed the program’s requirements stated in the PWS.

(b) Relative Importance. The following indicates the factors that will be considered in awarding the contract. The relative importance of the evaluation factors reflects the overall requirements of this acquisition as outlined in the

PWS.

(c) The following factors shall be evaluated in descending order of importance:

Factors

Factor 1:Technical Approach

Factor 2: Management Approach

Factor 3: Past Performance

Factor 4: Total Evaluated Cost (TEC)

The evaluation factors are divided into two categories, non-cost: “Technical Approach/Management Approach/Past

Performance” and cost:“Total Evaluated Cost (TEC)”. Technical Approach is more important than Management

Approach and Past Performance. The non-cost factors, when combined, are significantly more important than TEC;

however, as competing proposals approach equality in the non-cost factors, TEC will increase in importance.

2.2 Description of Evaluation Factors

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s technical capability to perform the Government’s requirements under this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the Offeror’s demonstrated technical understanding of the requirements and on the breadth, depth and relevance of information provided by the Offeror in response to the requirements set forth in Section C of this solicitation.

The nine trades will be grouped into two categories, Category A and Category B. Category A consists of the following trades: Welders, Pipefitters and Outside Machinists. Category B consists of the following trades:

Electricians, Shipfitters, Painters, Weight Handlers, Firewatch and Shipwrights. Each category will be weighted toward the overal Techncial score. Category A is more important than Category B.

*Note: All proposals must address the requirements above for each trade, regardless of category, in order to be considered responsive.

For each trade skill the Offeror’s technical approach will be evaluated based on the degree to which it clearly demonstrates knowledge and ability to perform the typical tasks and related competencies, as listed in Attachment 2.

The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s technical approach identifies the methodology and analytical techniques proposed to fulfill the technical requirements, provides an overview of the methodology guiding the performance of the technical requirements identified in the PWS, a general description of how that technical approach will be applied to accomplishing the requirements and offers a logical sequence of tasks that will be performed to accomplish the requirements.

The manner in which the Offeror addresses each typical task, as listed in Attachment 2, will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s technical understanding of the requirements and on the breadth, depth and relevance of information provided by the Offeror based on the task statements. Major factors considered for evaluation in this category are the degree to which the information in the proposal, including the training plan and curriculum submission, can be expected to yield acceptable technical performance and quality of the product, including thoroughness, accuracy, complements of planning, analysis and technical support efforts necessary to achieve technical performance objectives.

Factor 2 – Management Approach

The Offeror’s management approach will be evaluated for level of detail with emphasis on quality with regard to the

Offeror’s approach in overall project management, project execution methodology, schedule, communication and subcontracting plans. The proposal will also be evaluated on the extent to which the proposal describes how the

Offeror intends to manage and coordinate the task efforts of this contract, including planning, assigning responsibility, controlling personnel, minimizing employee turnover, controlling utilization of resources, tracking deliveries, and periodically monitoring performance and obtaining feedback.

The evaluation will consider the degree to which the proposal comprehensively addresses communication and integrating internal processes and tools in order to effectively manage cost, technical performance, risk and schedule. Proposed internal processes and tools will be evaluated for feasibility and potential for technical or schedule benefits to the Government.

Additional, evaluation will consider the extent to which the proposed organizational structure and office systems ensure effectiveness and efficiency in: (1) interfacing with PNSY personnel; (2) NAVSEA and other contractor and

Government agencies and Navy field activities and (3) performance and coordination of work.

The offeror’s approach for subcontract management will be evaluated for level of detail with emphasis on quality, on-time, which budget task completion, contractual arrangements, qualification requirements, selection process(es), contingency plans, subcontractor quality management plan and management interactions, including performance feedback.

For the purpose of evaluating management approach the nine trades will be grouped into two categories, Category A and Category B. Category A consists of the following trades: Welders, Pipefitters, and Outside Machinists. Category

B consists of the following trades: Electricians, Shipfitters, Painters, Weight Handlers, Firewatch and Shipwrights.

Each category will be weighted toward the overall Management score. Category A is more important than Category

B. Offeror's proposals shall clearly demonstrate their plan to manage the overall labor force as well as how they will specifically manage the individual labor trades

*Note: All proposals must address the requirements above for each trade, regardless of category, in order to be considered responsive.

Factor 3 – Past Performance

1. The Government will evaluate Offeror’s past performance over the past three years for relevance, which is considered to be whether the experience cited is similar to the size, scope and technical complexity of this effort.

Examples of relevant efforts include touch labor support in military shipbuilding industry. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to relate past performance to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will consider the relevance of past performance information obtained in relation to the scope of this procurement. Past performance, either positive or negative, which is considered by the Government to be more closely related to the scope of this effort, will be given additional weight in the evaluation process.

2. Offerors are advised that the Government may consider past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror, including Federal, State and local Government agencies, better business bureaus, published media and electronic databases including, but not limited to, Past Performance Information

Retrieval System (PPIRS) and CPARS. The Government may research Offeror performance on any Federal, State, local and commercial procurement that is known to the Government, but not included on a submitted reference.

3. For those Offerors who are determined by the Government to have no relevant past performance information, or for whom information on past performance is not available, a neutral past performance rating will be given.

4. In evaluating the Past Performance, the Government will consider:

a. Quality of Product or Service. The degree to which the products or services provided met the requirements of the contract and the degree to which they were similar to this solicitation.

b. Delivery/Completion Schedule. The extent to which the Offeror satisfied customer requirements for contract completion in accordance with agreed upon schedule.

c. Cost Control. The extent to which the Offeror provided contract services at or below their initially proposed costs while maintaining customer desired level of quality and delivery, and limit direct and indirect cost growth.

Factor 4 – Total Evaluated Cost

The Government will perform an analysis of the realism and completeness of the cost data, the traceability of the cost to the Offeror’s capability data, the proposed allocation of man-hours and labor mix and the proposed costs’ reflection of the Offeror’s understanding of the complexity and risk of the requirements.

Pertinent cost information, including but not limited to DCAA and/or DCMA recommended rates for such costs as direct labor, overhead, G&A, etc., as necessary and appropriate, will be used to arrive at the Government’s determination of the most probable cost to be incurred in the performance of this contract and to measure the reasonableness of the proposed costs. If proposed costs are considered to be unrealistic, including unrealistic labor and/or indirect rates, the Offeror’s proposed costs will be adjusted upward to reflect more realistic costs. Based on such analysis, an evaluated cost for the Offeror will be calculated to reflect the Government’s estimate of the

Offeror’s most probable costs.

Evaluation of the options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option. Evaluated cost to the Government, which is an offeror’s evaluated cost and the proposed fee for the base and all option periods, will be used in making an award determination. Therefore, any inconsistencies between proposed technical performance and cost, whether real or apparent, should be explained in the supporting cost data section. Offerors are cautioned that to the extent proposed costs appear unrealistic; the Government may infer either a lack of understanding of the requirements, increased risk of performance, or lack of credibility on the part of the Offeror. The burden of proof for cost credibility rests with the Offeror. Proposals which are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments or unrealistically high or low in cost may be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence, or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the proposed work.

(a) Adjectival Ratings

The Government will perform an evaluation of the Technical Capability, Management Approach and Past

Performance/Experience evaluation factors based on the Offeror’s proposal. This evaluation focuses on strengths and weaknesses of the Offeror’s proposal, resulting in the assignment of an adjectival rating for each factor and subfactor. Cost will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

Note: The following adjectival ratings/definitions shall be used for the Technical Capability and Experience and

Management Approach evaluation factors:

Rating Description

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Proposal is unawardable.

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

The following adjectival ratings/definitions shall be used for the Past Performance evaluation factor:

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation.

1) Relevancy of Past Performance

The first aspect is to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Sources of past performance information may include information provided by the Offeror, information obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition, or any other sources available to the Government. Other sources include, but are not limited to: PPIRS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic

Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting officers and Fee Determining Officials; and DCMA.

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.

Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the sources solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. Again, any measure of likelihood is a qualitative and not necessarily a quantitative measure.

2) Performance Confidence Assessment

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings below:

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.

Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

(End of Summary of Changes)