N40027-18-R-0020_NPTU_Barges_AMD_01.pdf

SEE SCHEDULE

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 PAGE TWO FOR SF30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION.

The purpose of this amendment specif ication clarif ications.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-Oct-2018

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N4002718R0020

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Sep-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

05-Oct-2018

CODE

COMMANDER SOUTHEAST REGIONAL MAINTENANCE

CTR P.O. BOX 280057, MAYPORT NAVAL STATION

JACKSONVILLE FL 32228-0057

N40027 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N4002718R0020

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

NPTU BARGES SSP 031-19 Amendment 0001

The following have been added by full text:

MODIFICATION P00001

Question 1: Work item: 992-31-001 For estimating purposes, can the Gov’t identify tanks & machinery spaces required to be open, cleaned, gas free in support of repairs?

Answer 1: The individual tanks are identified in work items that contain repairs. The 992-31-001 item covers the general requirements for open/clean/close of tanks, bilges and machinery spaces and paragraph 3.1 covers tanks adjacent to Contractor work which might require opening, cleaning and gas free certification. Machinery spaces include all engineering equipment spaces with a bilge area. Contractors submitting proposals are individually responsible to identify and estimate which spaces and tanks require cleaning and gas free certification consistent with the manner in which they intend to perform the contracted work.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will only consider offers from small business concerns.

This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated on a basis of past performance being significantly more important than price. The Government intends to make an award without discussions. By submission of all requested items in Volumes I, II, and III as noted in Section L, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. All such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

1. VOLUME I – PRICE

The price evaluation will document, for the offers evaluated under section B, the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed total evaluated price. The total evaluated price is the sum of all CLIN pricing (including options if any). The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures such as those listed in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to ensure fair and reasonable price. Offers will not be considered which do not submit prices in section B for all CLINs/SLINs/ELINs.

All proposals must include the email verification that the associated company is included in the

VET 4212 database. Directions to submit are provided here. http://www.dol.gov/vets/vets4212.htm

2. VOLUME II - PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will review finalized CPARS and PPQ reports up to five relevant (meaning at least somewhat relevant) and most recent contracts (if existing) completed within three years from the RFP proposal due date. These finalized CPARS reports will be retrieved using the offeror’s CAGE Code, name, address, and division identified on the SF 33. For relevant contract efforts not recorded in PPIRS as finalized CPARS reports, the Government will review up to (5) PPQs submitted in accordance with Section

L. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the requirement described in this Request for Proposal (RFP) based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation:

1) Past Performance Relevance

In determining the relevancy of the submitted data, the following levels of relevancy as shown in the below table will be used:

Rating Definition

Very

Relevant

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

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

Somewhat

Relevant

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

Not

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Scope, magnitude of effort and complexity are further defined below:

VERY RELEVANT

SCOPE: Scope will be considered very relevant if the type of work effort in the past performance event involved work essentially the same as the work in the RFP.

MAGNITUDE OF EFFORT: Magnitude of effort will be considered very relevant if the past performance event had a final contract value above $600,000.

COMPLEXITY: Complexity will be considered very relevant if the past performance event involved repairs on a Government vessels and Barges as well as ALL of the following.

1. Structural repairs

2. Electrical repairs

3. Piping repairs

4. Mechanical repairs

*Contract must be accomplished as the Prime contractor.

RELEVANT

SCOPE: Scope will be considered relevant if the type of work effort in the past performance event involved work similar to the work in the RFP.

MAGNITUDE OF EFFORT: Magnitude of effort will be considered relevant if the past performance event had a final contract value above $600,000.

COMPLEXITY: Complexity will be considered relevant if the past performance event involved repairs on a Government vessels and Barges as well as 3 of the 4 below.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

SCOPE: Scope will be considered somewhat relevant if the type of work effort in the past performance event involved some of the work in the RFP.

MAGNITUDE OF EFFORT: Magnitude of effort will be considered somewhat relevant if the past performance event had a final contract value above $600,000.

COMPLEXITY: Complexity will be considered somewhat relevant if the past performance event involved repairs on a Government vessels and Barges as well as 2 of the 4 below.

NOT RELEVANT

SCOPE: Scope will be considered not relevant if the type of work effort in the past performance event involved very little to none of the work in the RFP.

MAGNITUDE OF EFFORT: Not relevant if the past performance event had a final contract value less than $600,000.

COMPLEXITY: Complexity will be considered not relevant if the past performance event involved repairs on a Government vessels and Barges as well as 1 of the 4 below.

2) Past Performance Confidence Assessment

Past performance will not be rated on a pass/fail basis. The past performance information obtained will be reviewed to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings outlined in the below table:

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.

Neutral

Confidence

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

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, a “Neutral Confidence” will be assigned to the past performance factor and the offeror will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably on past performance. However, the

Government may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or a “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in the best value tradeoff analysis.

The overall performance confidence rating will be based on the technical/quality, schedule, and management performance for each contract.

3. VOLUME III - PREAWARD DATA

Pre-award data will be evaluated to determine responsibility.

4. COMPETITIVE RANGE

If awards are not made on the basis of initial offers, the Contracting Officer will make the determination as to which offers are in the “Competitive Range.” The competitive range shall be determined on the basis of the total evaluated prices and the past performance evaluations, and shall include only offerors that have a reasonable chance of being selected for award. The initial number of offers considered as being within the competitive range may be reduced when, as a result of the written or oral discussions, any such offer has been determined to no longer have a reasonable chance of being selected for award. The number of offers within the competitive range may also be reduced if the Contracting Officer determined that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included within the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted.

5. DISCUSSION AND PROPOSAL REVISIONS

For the Government’s intent regarding discussions, see FAR 52.215-1 included in section L of the RFP. If discussions are held, all offerors selected to participate in discussions shall be advised of deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and adverse past performance in their offer, and shall be offered an opportunity to correct or resolve these issues. However, if an offeror has already been afforded an opportunity to submit comments, rebutting statements or additional information concerning its past performance, or has already done so under FAR 42.15 or CPARS procedures, then discussions need not be held. At the conclusion of discussions, a final common cut-off date, which allows an opportunity for submission of written proposal revisions, shall be established, and those offerors selected to remain in the competitive range will be notified to submit proposal revisions.

A further evaluation of offers within the Competitive Range may occur in light of any additional information or data received during subsequent discussions and/or furnished with final proposal revisions.

(End of Summary of Changes)