Amendment 0002.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

FACILITIES SUPPORT SERVICES FOR VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND ALTERATIONS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN

THE HAMPTON ROADS AREA OF VIRGINIA.

This Amendment is issued to include new information regarding Section M.2, Evaluation Factors.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

See continued pages.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 30-Apr-2020

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 N4008520R0012

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

09-Apr-2020

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

30-Apr-2020

CODE

NAVFAC MID ATLANTIC

ACQUISITION CORE

9324 VIRGINIA AVENUE

NORFOLK VA 23511-3095

N40085 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N4008520R0012

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

BASIS FOR AWARD

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

a) The government will select the lowest price technically acceptable offer at a reasonable cost to the government.

M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS

a) The solicitaiton requires the evaluation of price and the following non-price factors:

1. Factor 1- Techincal Approach/Management

2. Factor 2- Corporate Experience

3. Factor 3- Safety

4. Factor 4- Past Performance

OFFERS MUST BE EVALUATED AS TECHINCALLY ACCEPTABLE UNDER FACTORS 1, 2, 3,

AND 4 IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE OVERALL.

The distinction between corporate experience and past performance is corporate experience pertains to the types of work and volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

In order to permit efficient competition, the Navy will utilize the following methodology: Proposals will initially be screened for price and placed in order of price (lowest price to highest price). The Navy will then evaluate the technical factors of the lowest priced proposal. The Navy will make award to the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal. However, if the lowest priced proposal is not found to be technically acceptable, the Navy, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to increase the number of proposals it will review, until the Government identifies a technically acceptable proposal. Accordingly, under this methodology, the technical factors of some proposals may not be evaluated by the Navy. If discussions are deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer, all proposals will be evaluated (both technical and price) for the purpose of establishing a competitive range.

NOTE: An overall non-price factors rating must be at least “ACCEPTABLE” in order to be eligible for award. An “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any factor results in the overall non-price factors proposal being rated “UNACCEPTABLE” unless corrected through discussions. An overall non-price factors rating of “UNACCEPTABLE” makes a proposal ineligible for award.

b) Non-cost/price proposals will be evaluated to ensure the offeror understands the requirement of the solicitation in accordance with the following description of each evaluation factor:

(1) Factor 1 – Techincal Approach/Management:

i. Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The offeror shall submit a narrative response that clearly demonstrates its understanding of and approach to accomplishing the complexity and magnitude of service requirements set forth in the performance objectives and standards of the Performance Work Statement. Each of the topics below must be included in the narrative, tabbed in the technical proposal, and discussed separately.

a. Phase-In Transition Plan: Describe what you will do to "start-up'' for performance of this contract. The phase-in transition period is 30 days as per F.2 of the RFP. Incl ude a schedule of key events and personnel actions, identification of key personnel and their responsibilities.

b. Workforce Management

(1) Describe the lines of management authority, supervision, span of control and accountability, including the relationship between overall management (corporate and on-site), administration, and subcontractors.

(2) Demonstrate your ability to provide and maintain a qualified workforce.

(3) Demonstrate your ability to manage different workforces and competing priorities at various sites.

(4) Describe the work to be performed as the prime contractor as well as work to be performed by each subcontractor proposed. The work to be self-performed, subcontractors to be utilized and their roles shall be clearly identified. If the prime will self-perform 100% of the work it shall be clearly stated. Additionally, offer must meet requirements of FAR 52.219-14, limitation on subcontracting and submit Attachment J-0200000-08 as part of this factor.

c. Quality Management. Provide a two page summary of your “Quality Management

System” i.e. the Quality Processes (Practices, Resources and Activities) and minimum controls that will be used to ensure full compliance with all performance objectives and standards as described in Section C, Annex 0200000 – Management and Administration. Include the methodology to be implemented to accomplish the performance requirements and detail how the proposed approach will effectively achieve each performance objective and standard.

ii. Basis of Evaluation: The Techical Approach/Management factor shall be evaluated based upon the followi ng criteria:

a. The proposal demonstrates an acceptable understanding of the performance objectives and standards.

b. The proposal demonstrates a thorough plan for having equipment and personnel in place to commence work on the contract start date.

c. The proposal provides a feasible technical approach with the capability to, at least, meet solicitation performance objectives and standards.

(2) Factor 2- Corporate Experience

i. Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Offerors shall submit the following information:

Submit a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of five (5) relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work requirements specified in the solicitation. The offeror shall be the prime contractor on a least one (1) project.

Size, scope, and complexity are further defined as follows:

Size: A vehicle and equipment maintenance service ccontract with a yearly value of at least $400,000.00 per year. This may include one project, or multiple non-recurring service orders.

Scope: Demonstrate the ability to provide all labor, management, supervision, tools, material, and equipment required to provide a signifcant number of the services described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The services include: disassemble, reassemble, inspection, cleaning, adjustments, replacement of parts, body damage repairs, straightening-welding, alignment, tire and rim replacement, windshield replacement, wood replacement, upholstery, refinishing, spray painting, corrosion control, test as applicable to correct defective item(s), electrical and battery systems, air conditioning systems, hydraulic systems, electronic ignition / computer systems, fuel injection systems, engine (gasoline and diesel), body, chassis and drive systems of Government automotive vehicles of the following sample types.

Vehicles and equipment includes: sedans, buses, dump trucks, stake body trucks, station wagons, carry-alls, pick-up trucks, vans, forklifts, road tractors, fire trucks, ambulances, and various construction equipment shall be included in this contract. The vehicles range in size from 1/4 ton to 40 tons, from 1967 model year until the current model year. (See J-1700000-01 and J-1700000-02 for a list of vehicles by ECC Codes). The vehicles and equipment listed in J-1700000-02 are for corrosion control and painting only. No mechanical work will normally be done on the J-1700000-02 identified vehicles. The Government will provide transportation to and from the Contractor’s repair facility for those vehicles at no cost to the Contractor. This information is provided to represent the type of vehicles normally used.

The Government reserves the right to change the types and quantities of vehicles that shall be serviced throughout the contract term at no additional cost to the Government.

Typical manufacturers include Chevrolet, Dodge, Ford, International, GMC, Chrysler, Plymouth, Nissan, Jeep, Harlan, Allis, Northwest, Mitsubishi, Caterpillar, Yale, Clark, Hyster, Wiggins, AC, LiftKing, PWR Lift, Drexel, Mercury, Pettibone, etc. Original design or functional capabilities of the vehicle and parts may be modified upon Government request and approval.

Complexity: Demonstrate the ability to respond simultaneously to multiple orders at various locations. Demonstrate the ability to manage competing priorities in order to support customer demands.

Projects submitted for the offeror shall be ongoing (having been performed for a period of at least one year ) or completed within the past 5 years of the date of issuance of the solicitation.

Projects with completion dates beyond one year shall be clearly defined as multi-year contracts or base contracts with option years. If the project has option periods, state which contract period is in progress, base, 1st option, etc.

The attached Corporate Experience Form (Attachment J 0200000-6) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages).

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP as it relates to size, scope, and complexity.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience shall be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. If the joint Venture does not have shared experience, projects shall be submitted for each Joint Venture partner. For a JV, the offeror shall provide the signed U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)-approved joint Venture Agreement or an SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé Agreement as part of this factor. Failure to submit an SBA-approved Agreement will result in the relationship being considered as Prime/Subcontractor and the prime contractor will not be found Acceptable on the basis of the subcontractor’s experience only. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF33), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract. The meaningful involvement shall be described in detail.

The assessment of the Offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. As noted above, to be deemed acceptable under this factor, the offeror must submit at least one (1) relevant project where the offeror served as the prime contractor (similar size, scope and complexity as the current requirement). The prime contractor will not be found acceptable solely on the basis of its subcontractor’s experience.

i. Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation will include the offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements above. The assessment of the offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. The Government will only review the first five projects submitted. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for this factor will not be considered.

(3) Factor 3- Safety:

i. Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit the following information: (For 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, DART, and TRC Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.)

1. Experience Modification Rate (EMR): Submit the last three previous complete calendar years’ worth of data. This rate compares company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums. The offeror may submit an insurance company-provided equivalent rate if no EMR exists. It the offeror has no EMR or premium, for any year, the offeror shall affirmatively state so and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affect the EMR and negative trends shall be addressed as part of the factor submission.

2. OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or job Transfer (DART) Rate: Submit the last three previous complete calendar years’ worth of data. If an offeror cannot submit an OSHA DART rate for any year, the offeror shall affirmatively state so and provide an explanation. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART rate data negatively must be addressed as part of this factor submission.

3. OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate: Submit the last three previous complete calendar years’ worth of data. If an offeror cannot submit an OSHA TRC rates for any year, the offeror shall affirmatively state so and provide an explanation. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA TRC rate data negatively must be addressed as part of this factor submission.

4. Offeror shall submit a separate OSHA 300A form for each of the last three complete calendar years.

5. Technical Approach for Safety: Describe the plan for safety that will be implemented to evaluate safety performance and vet potential subcontractors as part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors. The offeror shall submit a narrative that fully describes the safety management system that they will use to oversee the safety compliance and performance of self-performed and subcontractor performed work. The offeror will describe any innovative methods that will be employed to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and/or all subcontractor levels. Additionally, the contractor will describe their methodology to execute an effective program that facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques and processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps. The technical approach to safety narrative shall be limited to two pages.

ii. Basis of Evaluation: The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

- Experience Modification Rate (EMR) -OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or job Transfer (DART)

- Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates -Offeror Technical Approach to Safety -Other sources of information available to the Government

1. Experience Modification Rate (EMR): Submit the last three previous complete calendar years the offeror will submit EMR. If no EMR exists, the offeror may submit an insurance company-provided equivalent rate explaining why not. If an insurance company-provided equivalent if provided, it will be treated the same as an EMR. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the EMR and negative trends should be addressed as part of this selection factor. The board will evaluate the EMR to determine if the offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account ant negative trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating.

2. OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rates: Submit the last three previous complete calendar years, the offeror must submit their OSHA DART as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

If unable to submit OSHA DART rates, the offeror shall affirmatively state so, and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART rate data and negative trends should be addressed as part of this element. The board will evaluate the OSHA DART rates to determine if the offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact rates.

3. OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates: Submit the last three previous complete calendar years, the offeror must submit their OSHA TRC, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If unable to submit OSHA TRC rates, the offeror shall affirmatively state so, and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA TRC rate data and negative trends should be addressed as part of this element. The board will evaluate the OSHA TRC rates to determine if the offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact rates.

4. Offeror shall submit a separate OSHA 300A form for each of the last three complete calendar years.

5. Technical Approach to Safety: The offeror is required to address the following:

(a) Describe its plan to evaluate its own safety performance and describe the plan to vet potential subcontractors and monitor subcontractor safety performance.

(b) 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.

The board 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 board will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which innovations are being proposed that may enhance safety on this procurement and validate the contractor has addressed methodology to be used in the execution of an effective program that facilities sound mishap prevention techniques/processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps. 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.

6. Other Sources of Information Available to the Government: Other sources for safety may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), in Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other related databases.

(4) Factor 4- Past Performance:

i. Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Offerors shall clearly demonstrate a history of successful performance within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of the solicitation. The offeror shall be the prime contractor on a minimum of one (1) up to a maximum of five (5) relevant contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity to the RFP as defined in Factor 2, Corporate Experience. The prime contractor will not be found Acceptable on the basis of the subcontractor’s past performance. Additionally, the prime contractor’s experience as a subcontractor will not be considered.

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 the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 2, Corporate Experience. AN OFFEROR SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A

COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE.

IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure that 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 must complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment J 0200000-7), which will provide contract and client information for the respective objects(s). Offerors should follow-up with client/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Whitney M. Weireter, via email at whitney.weireter@navy.mil 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.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last 5 years from the date of issuance of the solicitation, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

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 DAGE/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 System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

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 as Attachment J 0200000-7.

ii. 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 some or all of the following:

- 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.); and

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

(End of Summary of Changes)