N39430-14-R-1401-Amend_01.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 SF30 Continuation Page AMENDMENT 1

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 10-Oct-2013

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 N39430-14-R-1401

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Oct-2013

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

10-Oct-2013

CODE

NAVFAC EXWC

CODE ACQ / NAVAL BASE VENTURA COUNTY

1100 23RD AVE BLDG 1100

PORT HUENEME CA 93043-4301

N39430 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N39430-14-R-1401

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 1

Amended as follows:

1. To update attachment B of Section C, removing the header. There is no change to the SOW content. Prospective Offerors should refer to the original solicitation posting to review SECT C. Attachment B has not been deleted.

2. To update Section J. Attachments D through I are available as separate Documents. These documents are posted in FEDBIZOPS with the basic solicitation.

3. To update Section L.1 Proposal Inquiries deadline from 25 October to 4 November 2013.

4. To update Section L.6.b. proposal submission deadline from 31 October 2013 to 12 November 2013.

5. To update Section L.6.c.1. proposal submission deadline from 31 October 2013 to 12 November 2013.

6. To update Section L. DFARS Clause 252.217-7002 Offering Property for Exchange.

7. To update Section M. Small Business Subcontracting Targets to reflect the FY14 small business goals.

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been deleted:

ATTACHMENT B-MED TO HIGH SPEED

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

ATTACHMENTS

Attachments Name

A Low Speed 1400kW SOW B Med and High Speed 1400 kW SOW C Description of Old Power Plants for Exchange D Old Power Plants Drawings E MUSE Lifting Lugs F Past Performance Questionnaire G Small Business Past Performance

H Small Business Subcontracting Plan I Small Business Offeror Small Business Participation Breakdown

Attachment A through C provided as part of SF 33.

Attachments D through I provided separately as attachment in FEDBIZOPS Solicitation.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

L.1 INQUIRIES BY OFFERORS

All technical questions, questions about the proposal submission process, or other questions pertaining to this solicitation, must be submitted in writing via E-mail to Euclid-Jake Posadas at euclidjake.posadas@navy.mil and June E. Haynes, at june.haynes@navy.mil before close of business, 2:00 p.m. PDT (California ) on 4 November 2013.

L.2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Offers are required to submit a written technical proposal demonstrating their understanding of the Government’s requirement. The contract is to be awarded to the single Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government, in terms of providing the product and performing the work in accordance with the preferred SOW (Attachment A) or the alternative SOW (Attachment B). This determination will be made after the evaluation of all proposals against the established criteria in section M is complete. The source selection will be made by the Source Selection Authority based on evaluations and input from the Source Selection Board. The Source Selection Board will be using the “Tradeoff Process” method when performing evaluations of which proposal represents the best value to the government. For purposes of this exchange, the tradeoff process permits tradeoffs between Price (i.e.

Quantity) and non-price factors and allows the Government to accept other than the offeror proposing the highest quantity of units. In order to accept an offeror with less proposed quantity, the Government shall make a determination that the quality of the units proposed outweighs the benefits of receiving more quantity.

L.3 ORGANIZATION OF OFFERS

Each offer shall contain all pertinent information in sufficient detail to permit effective evaluation. Each offer shall contain the following four, unattached, distinct and separable submittals. Please submit the following four items as stand-alone, individual submittals:

a. Cover Letter. A letter introducing the proposal

The cover letter shall clearly state: name and address of Offeror, name of the person or persons authorized to represent the Offeror in contractual matters, including final negotiations

b. Completed SF33

Please complete all requisite information on page 1 of the SF33, fill-in prices for all CLINS in Section B, complete all certifications and representations in Section K (in SAM as well)

c. Technical Proposal

d. Price Proposal

The Technical and Price proposal should be provided in volumes that are formatted as follows:

VOLUME/TAB FACTOR TITLE

I 1 Technical Approach and Understanding I / Tab A Technical approach I / Tab B Quality Management Plan I 2 Small Business Utilization I / Tab D Past Performance in Utilization of Small Business I / Tab E Small Business Participation I / Tab F 3 Safety I / Tab G 4 Past Performance II 5 Price Proposal

1. Each Volume of the proposal shall have a clear indication on which SOW attachment the offeror is using in their proposal by labeling proposals either as “ATTACHMENT A- Low Engine Speed Proposal” or “ATTACHMENT B-Med to High Engine Speed Proposal.”

2. Each volume of the proposal shall be separately bound in a three-ring loose-leaf binder that shall permit the volume to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification and the Offeror's name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder.

3. Each volume shall contain a table of contents to delineate the items addressed within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections as referenced above.

4. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with an explanation for each.

Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

5. Submission of the proposal shall be typewritten, and shall be presented on Standard 8.5x11 inch paper, one-inch margins, single-spacing using 12-point Times New Roman font print. Each section shall start on a new page;

pages shall be sequentially numbered and identified with the name of the offeror and the RFP number. Pages submitted which exceed the limits in the chart above will not be considered in the evaluation. The Cover Letter, blank pages, tables of contents, glossaries, and indexes are not considered a "page" for page limit purposes. The font size requirement for tables and graphics may be either Times New Roman or Calibri but no less than font size

12. Offerors may only submit 11x17 page foldouts in lieu of 8.5 x11pages to accommodate graphics and tables.

6. Volume I - Technical Proposal (Original and 3 copies separately bound and organized per above format).

Technical proposal includes all non-price factors 1 through 4.

7. Volume II – Price Proposal (Original and 1 copy separately bound and organized).

L.4 CONTENT OF VOLUME I – FACTORS 1-4: TECHNICAL / SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION /

SAFETY AND PAST PERFORMANCE

The technical proposal should be written as to address the requirements of the SOW of choice. The government will use the contractor’s response to the SOW as the primary indicator of the contractor’s understanding of and ability to meet the requirement. The offeror shall submit a narrative describing in detail how they will meet the requirements in the Request for Proposal (RFP). Each technical proposal shall be precise, detailed, and complete as to clearly and fully demonstrate a thorough knowledge and understanding of the requirements outlined in the SOW of choice.

Submittal Requirements for:

Factor 1 Technical Approach.

a. Technical Approach Narrative. The offeror shall submit a narrative describing in detail how they will meet the requirements in the Request for Proposal (RFP). The narrative shall provide sufficient detail to demonstrate the technical approach. The narrative SHALL include detailed description of the products and services specified in the offeror’s SOW of choice, the method of integration, method of testing, and accomplishing delivery to meet the requirements of the solicitation. The narrative shall not exceed 20 pages. Tables, product literature, sketches, and graphics are acceptable and are not counted toward the page limitation. Offerors are advised that excess pages will not be evaluated. Each technical proposal shall be precise, detailed, and complete as to clearly and fully demonstrate a thorough knowledge and understanding of the requirements outlined in the offeror’s SOW of choice.

b. Quality Management Plan- The offeror shall provide a summary of the proposed Quality Management Plan not to exceed two (2) pages. The summary shall describe both the Quality Control (QC) process (practices, resources, and activities) and Quality Assurance (QA) process that will be used to ensure full compliance with all performance objectives and standards. Describe methods to document, measure, control, and improve the quality process including a plan for training employees in the quality process.

Factor 2 Small Business Utilization

Subfactor 2.A – Past Performance in Utilization of Small Business Concerns

Proposals that do not include responses addressing ALL elements of the requirements stated below (a. through g.)

must include an explanation why that element is not addressed.

a. Provide performance evaluation ratings (i.e., SF1420, DD2626, or equivalent) obtained on the implementation of small business subcontracting plans for all of the offeror’s contracts referenced under Factor (4), Past Performance. Recently completed project evaluations are desired, however, in the absence of recently completed project evaluations, interim ratings for projects that are 80% complete may be considered. If more than five evaluation ratings are provided, only the first five will be considered. In addition, the Government may consider past performance information on other projects as made available to the Government from other sources (such as the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support Systems (CCASS)), Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System (ACASS) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)).

b. Provide information on national and industry-issued awards that offerors received for outstanding support to SB concerns within the past five (5) years. Include purpose, issuer, and date of award(s). National and industry-issued awards received beyond five (5) years will not be considered.

c. Provide information on previous, existing, planned or pending mentor-protégé agreements (MPA) under any Federal Government or other program held within the last five years. Information should include, at a minimum, the members, objectives, period of performance, and major accomplishments during the MPA.

d. Provide information on past use of Community Rehabilitation Program (CRP) organizations certified under the Ability One Program by NISH or the National Industry for the Blind (NIB). Information should include the contract type, type of work performed, period of performance, and number of employed severely handicapped persons.

e. Provide small business subcontracting history. Large businesses with Federal contracting experience shall provide completed or most recently approved SF294s “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts” or Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) on all contracts referenced under Factor (4) Past Performance. Reports for recently completed projects are desired, however, in the absence of recently completed project reports, interim reports may be considered if the project is at least 80% complete. If more than five (5) reports are provided, only the first five (5) will be considered. If goals were not met on submitted contracts, provide an explanation as to why.

Newly established Large Businesses, or Large Businesses with no prior SF294/ISR history shall submit a subcontracting history on Attachment G, Small Business Past Performance.

f. Small Business proposers shall provide a subcontracting history on Attachment G, Small Business Past Performance.

g. If an Offeror is utilizing past performance information of affiliates /subsidiaries /parent / LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the solicitation), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies will have meaningful participation of all members in the management of the subcontracting program/plan by identifying the personnel or resources from the member companies that will be dedicated to managing the plan, and an organization chart which demonstrates the reporting chain within the membership

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, Partnership LLC or other entity consisting of more than one entity, provide past performance information, elements a. through f., for each individual business entity(ies) that will be responsible for managing the subcontracting program/plan.

Subfactor 2.B - Small Business Participation

a. Identify in terms of dollar value and percentage of the total acquisition, the extent of work you will perform as the prime contractor. If submitting an offer as a Joint-Venture, identify the percentage of work each member will be responsible for and indicate the size status of each member, e.g., LB, SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, etc.

b. If you are a Large Business, submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan for this project in the format provided in Attachment G for this factor, to include all information required in the attachment. If you are a Small Business, submit a subcontracting participation breakdown in the format provided in Attachment H for this factor.

All proposers: To demonstrate commitment in using small business concerns, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan or subcontracting participation breakdown may list all subcontractors by name. If the proposed Small Business Subcontracting goals do not meet the minimum NAVFAC Small Business Subcontracting Targets, include a detailed explanation describing the actions taken to arrive at that determination, along with an explanation for the goals that actually were proposed. For proposals submitted on design-build solicitations, the proposer must identify its designer/design team in its Subcontracting Plan or Small Business Participation Breakdown.

Factor 3 Safety

The Offeror shall submit the following information: (For a partnership or joint venture, the following submittal requirements are required for each contractor who is part of the partnership or joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. EMR and DART Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.)

a. Experience Modification Rate (EMR): For the three previous complete calendar years 2010, 2011, and 2012, submit your EMR (which compares your company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums over a three year period). If you have no EMR, affirmatively state so, and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the EMR and upward or downward trends should be addressed as part of this element.

Lower EMRs will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

b. OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate: For the three previous complete calendar years 2010, 2011, and 2012, submit your OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If you cannot submit an OSHA DART Rate, affirmatively state so, and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART Rate data and upward or downward trends should be addressed as part of this element. Lower OSHA DART Rates will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

c. Technical Approach for Safety: Describe the plan that the Offeror will implement to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors, as a part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors. Also, describe any innovative methods that the Offeror will employ to ensure and monitor safe work practices at all subcontractor levels. The Safety Narrative shall be limited to two pages.

Factor 4 Past Performance

a. IF A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION IS AVAILABLE, IT SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL. IF THERE IS NOT A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to a maximum of three (3) relevant project, in terms of scope, size, and complexity that have been completed within the last five (5) years. AN OFFEROR SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS IS

AVAILABLE.

b. IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ ,which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Euclid-Jake Posadas, via email at Euclidjake.posadas@navy.mil, (not via the offeror), prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

c. Also include performance recognition documents received within the last five years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

d. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information Systems (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

e. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the offeror.

A copy of the blank Past Performance Questionnaire to be used for requesting client references is included in the solicitation.

The past performance criteria stated in the solicitation for relevancy are: similarity of items/configuration, service/support, complexity and dollar value (i.e. past performance is considered to be relevant if the past performance provided demonstrates a similarity to the above criteria vice past performance that does not).

Offerors should submit 4 copies of Volume I (original and three copies) of the proposal.

The technical proposal MUST NOT include any reference to price.

L.5 CONTENT OF VOLUME II – FACTOR 5: PRICE PROPOSAL

Submittal requirements for:

Factor 5 Price Proposal

The offeror must provide a price for each contract line item (CLIN) in Section B of this solicitation.

Offers are solicited on an “all or none” basis. Failure to submit offers for all line items listed shall be cause for rejection of offer.

Offerors should submit 2 copies of Volume II (original and one copy) of the proposal.

Please do not include or make reference to any price-related information in Volume I of your proposal

L. 6 SUBMISSION INSTRUCTION:

a. Offerors shall submit proposals in response to this solicitation in both paper (hard copy) and compact disks (CD).

b. Original and three (3) paper and CD copies of the technical proposal and Original and one (1) paper and CD copy of price/cost proposals shall be submitted to the address cited below. The package(s) shall be marked with the name of the offeror, the solicitation number, and the date and time specified for receipt of proposals. No other markings shall be used on the package(s). Proposals not received at the address below on or before 12 November 2013, 2:00 p.m. PDT (California) shall be subject to the provisions of 52.215-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS-

COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION (JAN 2004).

Submit technical and price proposals to the following address:

Naval Facilities Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center (NAVFAC EXWC) Attn: June Haynes, EXWC Acquisitions 1100 23rd Avenue Bldg 1100 Rm B107 Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4347

If commercial courier is being used for proposal delivery and base access may be a problem, contact, June Haynes, Contracting Officer at (805) 982-5095 or Euclid-Jake Posadas , Contract Specialist at (805) 982-4217and the courier will be met at the Pass and ID Office, Building Number: 1183, at Sunkist Gate, Naval Base Ventura County, and Port Hueneme, for proposal delivery.

c. HAND CARRY DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS: If a contractor chooses to hand carry their offers but has no base access to the Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme CA delivering their offers, instructions are as follows:

1. A government employee representative from EXWC Acquisitions will be standing by inside the Pass and ID Office, Building Number: 1183, at Sunkist Gate, Naval Base Ventura County, and Port Hueneme, CA on the afternoon of 12 November 2013 from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. PDT (California) to receive offers to this solicitation.

2. Any offers that is to be hand delivered before the date, place, and time specified above, offerors must contact by telephone, June Haynes, Contracting Officer at (805) 982-5095 or Euclid-Jake Posadas, Contract Specialist at (805) 982-4217.

(End of provision)

252.217‐7002 OFFERING PROPERTY FOR EXCHANGE (JUN 2012)

(a) The property described in Attachment C as OLD generators, and described in CLIN 0002 as 28 Government owned Electro-Motive Division (EMD) 645 Diesel Generator Power plants, collateral equipment and spare parts, is being offered in accordance with the exchange provisions of 40 U.S.C. 503.

(b) The properties in CLIN 0002, all 28 OLD generators, collateral equipment, and spare parts are located at the Mobile Unit Support Equipment (MUSE) Dept. staging area, adjacent to Building 1360 at the Naval Base Ventura County Port Hueneme, CA 93043. Offerors may inspect the property during the period 15 October 2013 through 31 October 2013 during the business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (California, PDT) Monday thru Friday.

(c) All site visits must be scheduled through UTC Jayson Hansen or CEC Juan Aragon Email addresses: Jayson.hansen@navy.mil or juan.aragon@navy.mil Telephone number: (805)982-5542 or (805)982-4607

Location: Naval Facilities Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center (NAVFAC EXWC).

1000 23rd Avenue Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4301.

(d) Please include the Contract Specialist, Euclid-Jake Posadas, at euclidjake.posadas@navy.mil and the Contracting Officer, June E. Haynes, at june.haynes@navy.mil on all site visit requests or related emails that are sent to Chief Hansen.

(End of provision)

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS

EVALUATION FACTORS, SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND BASIS OF EVALUATION

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

The intent of this solicitation is to result in a contract to be awarded to the single Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government, in terms of performing the work in accordance with the Statement of Work. This determination will be made after the evaluation of all proposals against the established criteria listed in this section is complete. The source selection will be made by the Source Selection Authority. The Source Selection Board will be using the “Tradeoff Process” method when performing evaluations of which proposal represents the best value to the government. The Tradeoff Process permits tradeoffs among price and non-price factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.

The requirement is unrestricted and all qualified contractors that wish to compete by submitting a proposal may do

so. The intended result is to award of a Firm Fixed Price exchange of personal property. It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions, unless the Government decides it is in its best interest to create competitive range and thereby hold discussions. The competitive range will be established in accordance with FAR 52.215-1 Alt.I. All Offerors within the competitive range will participate in discussions. Because it is likely that discussions will not be held, Offerors’ initial proposals should contain their most favorable price and technical terms. Offerors will be notified should discussions be deemed necessary.

Offers are solicited on an “all or none” basis in accordance with Section L, FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competititive Acquisition. Failure to submit prices of all items and quantities listed shall be cause for rejection of the proposal, except as where otherwise noted.

M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS

1. The solicitation requires the evaluation of Price and the following non-cost/price factors and subfactors:

Factor 1 - Technical Approach Factor 2 – Small Business Utilization Subfactor 4.A. – Past Performance in Utilization of Small Business Concerns Subfactor 4.B. – Small Business Participation Factor 3 – Safety Factor 4 – Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects Factor 5- Price

2. The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors and subfactors is the technical factors (Factors, 1, 2, and 3) and their respective subfactors are of equal importance to each other respectively and, when combined are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment factor (Factor 4). When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance/performance confidence assessment factor combined (i.e., the non-cost/price evaluation factors) are approximately equal to the Price factor.

The importance of price factor will increase if the Offerors’ non-cost/price proposals are considered essentially equal in terms of overall quality, or if the number of acceptable quality units offered is so high as to significantly diminish the value of a non-cost/price proposal’s superiority to the Government. The importance of non-cost/price factor will increase if the Offerors’ price proposals are equal in terms of the number of units offered. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

3. Basis of Evaluation for Each Factor.

(1) Factor 1 Technical Approach

Basis of Evaluation:

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's technical approach to determine adherence to the technical requirements of the RFP. The government preference is Attachment A-Low Engine Speed and may be rated higher.

b. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s quality management plan to determine if the Quality Control (QC) process (practices, resources and activities) and Quality Assurance (QA) process is in full compliance with the performance objectives and standards of the RFP.

(2) Factor 2 Small Business Utilization

Factor 2 consists of two Subfactors, 2A, Past Performance in Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 2B, Small Business Participation. The evaluation of Subfactors 2A and 2B are of equal importance to the determination of Factor 2 Rating.

SUBFACTOR 2.A – PAST PERFORMANCE IN UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS

Basis of Evaluation: The extent to which the proposal demonstrates the proposer’s level of past performance in utilizing Small Business (SB) concerns, AbilityOne, Mentor-Protégé Agreements, and other socio-economic programs, as defined in FAR Parts 26.1 and 26.2, in subcontracting, and in meeting established Small Business subcontracting goals.

SUBFACTOR 2.B - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

Basis of Evaluation:

The following will be evaluated on all proposals:

a. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates maximum practicable participation of SBs in terms of the total value of the acquisition, including options.

b. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a commitment to use SB concerns that are specifically identified in the proposal, including but not limited to use of mentor protégé programs.

c. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates SB participation in a variety of industries expected during the performance of work.

d. The realism of the proposal to meet the proposed goals.

The following will be evaluated on proposals submitted by Large Business firms:

e. The extent to which the proposal provides Small Business Subcontracting goals that meet or exceed the minimum NAVFAC Small Business Subcontracting Targets, and utilization of AbilityOne CRP organizations.

Proposals that provide goals exceeding the NAVFAC Subcontracting Targets may be rated higher. The proposed goals and NAVFAC Subcontracting Targets are expressed as a percentage of total subcontracted values. The minimum NAVFAC Subcontracting Targets are as follows:

FY 2014

SB 67%

SDB 17%

WOSB 15%

HUBZone 9%

SDVOSB 3%

The extent to which the proposer’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan establishes reasonable efforts demonstrating the subcontracting targets can be met during the performance of the contract:

Attachment G – Small Business Past Performance Attachment H– Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Attachment I – Small Business Offeror Small Business Participation Breakdown

(3) Factor 3 Safety:

Basis of Evaluation: The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety record, the Offeror’s plan to select and monitor subcontractors, any and innovative safety methods that the Offeror plans to implement for this procurement.

The Government’s sources of information for evaluating safety may include, but are not limited to, OSHA, NAVFAC’s Facility Accident and Incident Reporting (FAIR) database, and other related databases. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete safety information regarding these submittal requirements rests with the Offeror. The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

a. Experience Modification Rate (EMR): The Government will evaluate the EMR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating. Lower EMRs will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

b. OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate: The Government will evaluate the OSHA DART Rate to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates. Lower OSHA DART Rates will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

c. Technical Approach to Safety: The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the selection of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project. The Government will also evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which innovations are being proposed that may enhance safety on this procurement. Those Offerors whose plan demonstrates a commitment to hire subcontractors with a culture of safety and who propose innovative methods to enhance a safe working environment may be given greater weight in the evaluation.

d. Other sources of information available to the Government.

(4) Factor 4 Past Performance:

Basis of Evaluation: The degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., PPIRS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance considering:

- A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

- A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

- A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.);

- Recency of tasks performed that are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand; and

- A respect for stewardship of Government funds.

(5) Factor 5 Price

Basis of Evaluation: The quantity of NEW generators offered is the “price” to be evaluated by the government. The fair market value of the quantity offered will be compared with the fair market value of the exchange material to determine whether a fair and reasonable price is proposed.

This is a zero dollar exchange of equipment; the Contractor’s sole consideration for its delivery of the agreed-upon quantity of New Generators (CLIN 0001) will be its assumption of ownership of the twenty-eight (28) old generators, collateral equipment, and spare parts (CLIN 0002). As such proposals will also be evaluated to see that the sum of CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 is zero. Proposals having the sum total of all CLINS exceeding “zero” will be considered non-responsive.

(End of Summary of Changes)