Amendment 0004_19Nov2020.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

1. The purpose of this amendment is to:

a.) Provide responses to the RFI's (see attachment) b.) Upload Attachment J - EXHIBIT LINE ITEMS (ELINs) c.) Upload Exhibit M (MPC-1 OM PWS HSMST Post-Operational Checklist 20200825)

2. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-Nov-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 N4019220R4010

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-Oct-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, 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

19-Nov-2020

CODE

COMMANDING OFFICER - NAVFAC MARIANAS

FEAD - SUPPLY

PSC 455 BOX 195

FPO AP 96540-2937

N40192 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N4019220R4010

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

1. The Government intends to award one contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation, in accordance with the evaluation factors specified in the solicitation.

2. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to negotiate with Offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the Offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value—the proposal most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

3. As stated in the solicitation, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors, (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)).The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary. In addition, if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

4. The tradeoff process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition. The Government considers it to be in its best interest to allow consideration of award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror.

5. All technical factors when combined are of equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating; and all technical factors and the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating, when combined are approximately equal to price.

6. Any proposal found to have a deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award, unless the deficiency is corrected through discussions.

Proposals may be found to have either a significant weakness or multiple weaknesses that impact either the individual factor rating or the overall rating for the proposal. The evaluation report must document the evaluation board’s assessment of the identified weakness(s) and the associated risk to successful contract performance resulting from the weakness(s). This assessment must provide the rationale for proceeding to award without discussions.

M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. The solicitation requires the evaluation of price and the following non-price factors.

Factor 1 – Offeror Experience Factor 2 – Management Plan Factor 3 – Safety Factor 4 – Past Performance

2. The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors is the technical factors (Factors 1, 2, and 3) are of equal importance to each other 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 noncost/ price evaluation factors) are approximately equal to price.

M.3. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND BASIS OF EVALUATION FOR EACH FACTOR

Factor 1, Offeror Experience:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The attached Project Data Sheet (Attachment C) 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 two (2) pages. In the event the Project Data Sheet exceeds two (2) pages, Offerors will receive evaluation of the first two (2) pages and the remainder will not be evaluated.

Offeror shall submit a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of five (5) service projects/work performed by the Offeror that best demonstrates Offeror experience on recent, relevant projects that are similar in size, scope and complexity to the Request for Proposal (RFP). For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as SIMILAR MPC-1 SERVICES performed under a single task order or contract. If the MPC-1 Services were performed as a part of a multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contract, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project, rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project and provide the specific services, tasks and value that is considered to be same or similar to the scope, size, and complexity to the RFP. Service projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) projects will not be considered.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. If the Joint Venture does not have shared experience, projects may be submitted for the Joint Venture members. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all Joint Venture members may be rated lower. Offerors are still limited to a maximum of five (5) service projects/work combined. The Offeror shall submit a signed copy of the Joint Venture Agreement indicating the proposed participation of each Joint Venture member. Failure to submit the required Joint Venture Agreement will be found unacceptable.

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 Offeror may utilize experience of a subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement to demonstrate MPC-1 services experience under this evaluation factor. The Offeror must provide a Letter of Commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement that the subcontractor will have in performance of this contract.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will focus on whether the Offeror demonstrates extensive experience in recent, relevant MPC-1/watercraft services projects. The Offeror’s experience demonstrates a strong ability to manage MPC-1 service projects, with little to no risk of achieving solicitation requirements.

As previously stated, recency of the evaluated project will also be considered. For purpose of evaluation, recent is considered to be a project within the past five (5) years and relevancy is based on similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming effort required, if any. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) projects will not be considered.

Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) projects will not be considered.

Factor 2, Management Plan:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror’s proposal must include a plan with emphasis on an effective organizational structure for performance of the work required and quality control procedures to adequately monitor and measure contract performance.

Each of the components below should be discussed separately, in the following format:

1. Workforce Management: Describe the lines of management authority, supervision, span of control and accountability, including the relationship between overall management (corporate and on-site), administration, joint venture agreements and subcontractors. Include an organizational chart identifying the on-site organization, on-site staff, and corporate staff that will be used to perform this contract. If subcontractors are used, identify their percentage of involvement as they relate to the specific sections of the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

2. Key Personnel: Provide a list and qualifications for the following Key Personnel:

Project Manager, Boat Captain, Senior Marine Mechanical Engineer, Junior Marine Mechanical Engineer, First Mate, Marine Electrician, and Deck Hand. Identify key personnel by name, educational level, certifications received, qualifications, years of service with the company, and years of applicable experience. Failure to identify all Key Personnel as required above shall result in an unacceptable rating. Identifying Key Personnel as “To Be Determined (TBD)” shall not suffice.

3. Quality Management: Describe the methods to be used to monitor, document, measure and control, and improve contract performance. Discuss the process for early identification and resolution of problems. Describe the plan for training employees in the quality processes. Describe the process that will be used to ensure consistent satisfactory performance of subcontractors.

The narrative shall not exceed ten (10) pages. In the event the narrative exceeds ten (10) pages, Offerors will receive evaluation of the first ten (10) pages and the remainder will not be evaluated.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the management and quality approach considering the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements of the project.

The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the Offeror’s project management plan and structure for performance, and the ability to utilize such objectives to successfully meet the MPC-1 services requirements of this contract.

The Government will evaluate whether key personnel proposed meet or exceed the stated minimum requirements in terms of experience, education, and training and that the Offeror’s succession plan demonstrates a plan to address personnel shortfalls and a process to recruit and retain qualified personnel.

The Government will evaluate whether the quality control measures are appropriate to successfully perform the PWS requirements, as well as the effectiveness of the Offeror’s plan for management of subcontracted efforts.

Failure to address all submittal components will result in an unacceptable rating.

Factor 3, Safety

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: 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. DART and TRC Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.

(1) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate: Submit five previous complete calendar years’ worth of data for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. If an Offeror cannot submit an OSHA DART and TRC rates, for any year, affirmatively state so and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA, DART, and TRC rate data negatively must be addressed as part of this factor submission.

(2) Technical Approach for Safety: Describe the plan for safety that will be implemented to evaluate safety performance of 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 selfperformed and/or all subcontractor levels. Additionally, the contactor 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 nearmiss mishaps. The technical approach to safety narrative shall be limited to two pages. In the event the narrative exceeds two (2) pages, Offerors will receive evaluation of the first two (2) pages and the remainder will not be evaluated.

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

- OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates

- Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

- Other sources of information available to the Government.

(1) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates: For the five previous complete calendar years (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019), the Offeror will submit their OSHA DART and TRC, as defined by the U.S.

Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If unable to submit OSHA DART and TRC rates, affirmatively state so, and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART and TRC rate data and negative trends should be addressed as part of this element. The board will evaluate the OSHA DART and 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.

(2) Technical Approach to Safety: The Offeror will describe their plan to evaluate their safety performance and that of potential 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. 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 facilitates 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.

(3) 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 evaluation will collectively consider the DART rate, TCR, Technical Approach to Safety, and other sources of information available to the Government as part of such collective evaluation. The board will evaluate the DART rates and TCR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any negative trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating.

(4) 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.

Factor 4, Past Performance:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: 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 1 Offeror Experience. AN

OFFEROR SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE.

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 (Attachment D), 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, Jeno Aguon, via email at jeno.aguon@fe.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 five (5) years 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 CAGE/Entity Identifier 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.

For the purpose of evaluation, recent is considered to be a project within the past five (5) years and relevancy is based on similarity of MPC-1 services, complexity, dollar value, and contract type.

(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:

- 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.

Factor 5, Price:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: As part of the pricing proposal, Offerors shall:

i) Standard Form 33, with blocks 12 through 18 completed;

ii) Section B (Supplies or Services and Price/Cost)

iii) Complete Schedule of Prices in Exhibits A through E (Section J). All unit prices shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. As part of their pricing proposal, Offerors shall provide a complete detailed cost breakdown for each contract period by cost element, and by Exhibit Line Item Number (ELIN) to support the amounts specified for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) on Section B.

iv) Provide supporting worksheets and narrative explanations to fully explain the basis and rationale for the proposed amounts, including back up details that can be related to the various segments of an Offeror’s technical proposal.

v) Complete Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors.

vi) Provide Joint Venture Agreement, Partnership Agreement and/or Teaming Agreement (if applicable). The JV or Partnership must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database as the JV or Partnership. The SAM website is located at https://www.sam.gov.

Failure to submit the Joint Venture Agreement, Partnership Agreement, or Teaming Agreement may result in the Offeror’s proposal being rejected as non-responsible.

(2) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government price evaluation will entail a Price Analysis. The total evaluated price will be the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices. The Government will evaluate price based on the total price.

Total price consists of the basic requirements and all option items (see Section B of the solicitation). The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990). In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFP.

(ii) Comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE.

(iii) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

(iv) Comparison of market survey results.

The Government will verify that the annual direct labor rates, indirect expense rates and profit factor proposed on the Schedules of Firm Fixed Price are fair and reasonable. Offerors that submit inconsistent rates between Attachments may be considered non-responsive. The Government will assess the adequacy and completeness of the Offeror provided information required for this factor. Offerors that submit inadequate or incomplete information may be considered nonresponsive.

Pricing Discrepancies:

In the event there is a difference between a unit price and the extended total amount, the unit price will be the intended offer and the total of the CLINs or ELINs will be recomputed accordingly. The CLIN which includes the recomputed contract ELINs, will also be recomputed to take into account the change in the contract ELINs. If the Offeror provides a total amount for a CLIN or ELIN but fails to enter the unit price, the total amount divided by the CLIN or ELIN quantity will be held to be the intended unit price.

(End of Summary of Changes)