N4523A-17-R-0016-03_(Amendment).pdf

N4523A17RQ00012

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

This solicitation modif ication extendis proposal due time and date to 12:00 P.M. (PST), 20 Jan 2017. Questions concerning this requirement w ill be considered for response no later than 12:00 P.M. (PST), 13 Jan 2017.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 09-Jan-2017

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 N4523A-17-R-0016

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

17-Nov-2016

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

09-Jan-2017

CODE

PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD CODE 400

1400 FARRAGUT

CONTRACTING CODE 440

BREMERTON WA 98314

N4523A 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N4523A-17-R-0016

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2016) (Tailored)

NOTE: This provision must be reviewed completely. It contains the guidelines for submission of your proposal.

This is a commercial solicitation using procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process. This process permits tradeoffs among price and non-price factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal if a higher priced proposal demonstrates additional benefits to the Government.

(a) An Offeror’s proposal is presumed to represent the best efforts to respond to the solicitation. The Government intends to award to the Offeror presenting a best value offer considering technical capabilities, past performance, and price. The proposal shall present evidence of the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements. The proposal shall demonstrate the Offeror’s familiarity with the detailed aspects of the requirements and shall clearly show that the Offeror correctly interpreted all of the requirements. Responses must adequately address specific solicitation requirements. Statements such as "the Offeror understands" and "the Offeror shall/can comply" along with responses that paraphrase the solicitation are inadequate. The use of phrases such as "standard practices" (with a specific government reference or industry reference) is unacceptable. Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall contain the information specified within FAR 52.212-2. Offerors are cautioned to not simply restate the specifications in their technical proposal. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired. Failure of a proposal to comply with these instructions may be grounds for exclusion of the proposal from further consideration.

(b) Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of proposals.

(1) The offeror’s proposal shall be sent to the Contracting Officer’s point-of-contact (POC) via e-mail:

D. Mirano, Contract Specialist (Code 449); e-mail: david.mirano@navy.mil; Comm: (360) 516-8882

The proposal shall include:

(a) The cover letter of the proposal which must show the following:

(i) The solicitation number;

(ii) The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the Offeror;

(iii) A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which price is offered;

(iv) Names, titles, and telephone and facsimile numbers and e-mail addresses of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation; and

(v) Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal.

(2) Overview of submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of proposals.

(a) Offerors are responsible for submitting proposals and any revisions to be received by the above POC by the time specified in the solicitation.

(b) Any proposal modification or revision not received/submitted by the exact time specified for receipt of offers is “late” and will not be considered.

(c) Proposals may be withdrawn by written notice to the Contracting Officer provided such notice is received prior to award.

(3) The Offeror must propose to provide all items in requirements to be deemed responsive to this solicitation.

(4) Offerors may submit modifications to their proposals at any time before the solicitation closing date and time.

In the event of an amendment to the solicitation that requires offerors to submit proposal revisions, the amendment will provide instructions for such.

(5) Proposals may be withdrawn at any time before award. Withdrawals are effective upon receipt of notice by the Contracting Officer.

(c) Offer expiration date. Proposals in response to this solicitation shall be valid for 180 calendar days.

(d) Award.

(1) The Government intends to award a contract that results from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal represents the Best Value to the Government in accordance with the Factors and Subfactors set forth in “Evaluation Factors” of the solicitation.

(2) The Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the Government’s interest.

(3) The Government reserves the right to waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received.

(4) The Government intends to award a contract upon initial proposals. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government may contact any or all or a limited number of offerors with questions concerning their responses as permitted under the FAR Part 15.

(5) The Government reserves the right to make an award on any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered, at the unit price offered, unless the Offeror specifies otherwise in the proposal.

(6) The Government reserves the right to make multiple awards if, after considering the additional administrative costs, quality of proposals, and availability of funding, it is in the Government’s best interest to do so.

(7) Exchanges with Offerors after receipt of a proposal do not constitute a rejection or counter-offer by the

Government.

(8) The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the price proposed is materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, it is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(9) Proposal analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404.

(10) Once awarded, the contract cannot be modified except by the Contracting Officer electronically signing/awarding a modification.

Each Offeror must electronically submit an offer that demonstrates its understanding of the requirements within the evaluation factors.Offerors may submit questions requesting clarification of solicitation requirements via e-mail.

All questions shall be submitted by 12:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time (PST) on 13 Jan 2017.

The electronic proposal shall be prepared so that if printed, the proposal meets the following format requirements:

- 8.5 x 11 inch paper

- Single-spaced typed lines

- Supporting brochures and other information as may be required or necessary. Each page will have one- inch margins, 12-point Times New Roman Font text, No hyperlinks, and be submitted using Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, Power Point) or Adobe.

All filenames shall include the Offeror's company name and title/subject of file content; all files shall be named with the file extension .doc, .xls, .ppt, or .pdf

Tne North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this effort is Ship Building and

Repairing (336611).

Non-Price factors shall be submitted separately from Price. Non-Price factors, technical capabilities and past performance shall be submitted in one volume each. Price shall be submitted separately. No pricing information of any kind shall be included in any non-price volume.

A written notice of award or acceptance of a proposal, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the

Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

TIME OF SUBMISSION: All proposals and supporting documents must be submitted by 1200 P.M. PST 20

January 2017. Late proposals will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.215-1. Note: Only email submissions will be accepted.

(End of provision)

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014) (Tailored)

A contract will be awarded to that responsible offeror whose proposal represents the Best Value after evaluation in accordance with the factors described herein. "Factors" shall include any and all of the evaluation factors which are described in this section.

General:

- It is the intention of the Navy to award one Firm Fixed-Price (FP) contract.

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

- The Government intends to evaluate responsive proposals and award the Contract upon initial proposals.

Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a past performance, technical acceptability, and a price standpoint.

1.0 Basis for Award

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

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

(2) The proposal must meet all solicitation requirements.

(3) OFFERORS SHALL NOT BE WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY FOREIGN OWNED. DUE TO TIME

CONTRAINTS, THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO VET FOREIGN OWNERSHIP. FOREIGN

OWNERSHIP IS A DISCRIMINATING CHARACTERISTIC THAT WILL DEEM SUCH AN OFFEROR

INELIGIBLE FOR AWARD.

b. The Government anticipates a single Contract award resulting from this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to award more than one or no contract, depending on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds. The Government also reserves the right to make an award without discussions.

c. The award decision will be determined based on the Government’s evaluation of each Offeror’s complete proposal against the evaluation factors identified below. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal demonstrates the best overall value to the Government based on the factors described herein. Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement (FAR 2.101). In making this decision, the Government is more concerned with obtaining offers demonstrating superior past performance and technical acceptability based on the non-price factors at a reasonable price than with making an award to the Offeror with the lowest proposed price. Accordingly, the

Government may be willing to pay a reasonable premium for a contract offering superior past performance and technical acceptability.

d. In order to select the successful Offeror, the Government will compare Offeror proposals. The comparison will trade off differences based on the non-price factors of past performance and technical acceptability and the factor of price. If one Offeror has both the better past performance and technical acceptability and the lower price, then that

Offeror will be the better value. If one Offeror has the better past performance and technical acceptability and a higher price, the Government will decide whether the difference in past performance and technical acceptability is worth the difference in price. If it is determined that the difference in past performance and technical acceptability is worth the difference in price, then the more capable, higher-priced Offeror will be the better value. If not, then the less capable, lower-priced Offeror will be the better value. A best value analysis will not be performed for any

Offerors who are unacceptable or unsatisfactory in any factor and award will not be made to any Offeror who is unacceptable or unsatisfactory in any factor.

2.0 Best Value Evaluation Factors

a. Technical Acceptability

(No sub-factors)

b. Past Performance

c. Price

2.1 Application of Factors

a. General. The Government will apply the best value evaluation factors to identify the best value proposal. The evaluation factors represent key areas of importance to be considered in the source selection decision. The factors and their associated elements have been chosen to support meaningful discrimination between and among competing proposals. As demonstrated in their proposals, prospective Offerors shall be evaluated in terms of their ability to meet or exceed the program’s requirements stated in the PWS. Proposals shall be evaluated in accordance with the factors described in paragraph 2.2 below.

b. Relative Importance. The relative importance of the best value evaluation factors contained in Section 2.0 above reflect the overall requirements of this acquisition as outlined in the PWS. The evaluation factors are divided into three categories, “Past Performance,” “Technical Acceptability,” and “Price.” The evaluation will consider the areas identified above.

When evaluating, “Past Performance” is to be considered more important than “Technical Acceptability.” “Past

Performance” and “Technical Acceptability” are to be considered significantly more important than “Price.”

However, as competing proposals approach “Past Performance” and “Technical Acceptability” equality, “Price” will increase in importance.

c. Adjectival Ratings. The Government will perform an evaluation of the “Past Performance” and “Technical

Acceptability” evaluation factors based on the Offeror’s proposal resulting in the assignment of an adjectival rating for each factor. Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

1) The following adjectival ratings/definitions shall be used for the “Technical Acceptability” evaluation factor:

Outstanding: An outstanding proposal is characterized as follows:

• Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements.

Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful contract performance is very low.

Very Good: A very good proposal is characterized as follows:

• Proposal meets the requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements.

Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful contract performance is low.

Acceptable: An acceptable proposal is characterized as follows:

• Proposal meets the requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful contract performance is low.

Marginal: A marginal proposal is characterized as follows:

• Proposal does not clearly meet the requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more major weaknesses that are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful contract performance is high.

Unacceptable: An unacceptable proposal is characterized as follows:

• Proposal does not meet the requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. The proposal is un-awardable.

Definitions of terms to be used in evaluation of “Technical Acceptability:”

Weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A

“significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful performance.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency is defined as a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Risk is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definitions:

“Relevant”

Present/past performance effort involved much of the 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.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts.

Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings below:

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Rating Definitions:

“Substantial Confidence”

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

“Satisfactory Confidence”

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

“Limited Confidence”

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

“No Confidence”

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

“Unknown Confidence” (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

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

Definitions of terms to be used in evaluation of “Past Performance:”

“Recency,” as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

“Relevancy,” as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

2.2 Description of Best Value Evaluation Factors

Factor 1: Technical Acceptability

The Government will evaluate the degree to which the proposal demonstrates specific knowledge, capability and understanding to perform the tasks outlined in the PWS task and sub-task structure.

Factor 2: Past Performance

Past performance is a measure of the degree to which the Offeror satisfied its customers in previous relevant contracts and complied with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. The Government will evaluate Previous

Contract Effort narratives, and may contact some of each Offeror’s customers to ask whether or not they believe: (1) that the Offeror is capable, efficient and effective; (2) that the Offeror’s performance conformed to the terms and conditions of its contract; (3) that the Offeror was reasonable and cooperative during performance; (4) that the

Offeror was committed to customer satisfaction; and (5) if given a chance whether they would select the same or a different Contractor.

The Government may consider past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror, including Federal, State, and local government agencies, Better Business Bureaus, published media and electronic databases. The lack of recent and relevant past performance information will result in the assignment of a neutral rating (i.e. neither favorable nor unfavorable) for this factor.

Factor 3: Price: The Government will conduct price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404 to determine whether the proposed price reflects an understanding of the work and an ability to perform the contract, and is reasonable.

(End of provision)

The following have been deleted:

52.219-1 Alt I Small Business Program Representations (Sept 2015)

Alternate I

SEP 2015

(End of Summary of Changes)