FIRETANKWATCH_AMEND0006.docx

N50054-14-R-0006

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this amendment:

Contractors must provide an additional Training Plan for the Fire Watch and Tank Watch solicitation Technical Requirement. See revised Section L clause RMC L-2-0018 (Required Submission of Proposals for This Solicitation) and Section M clause RMC M-1-0003 (Basis for Award) for details explaining the additional requirement of a Fire Watch Training Plan. Changes in these clauses are underlined.

Offerors are discouraged from submitting any other information other than what has been requested above. The Fire Watch Training Plan response will be considered as an amendment to your initial Technical proposal and as such will be considered as forming a part of the contract award. A separate, revised Technical Proposal incorporating the Fire Watch Training Plan into the text of the original Technical Proposal will not be required.

The referenced NNSY Industrial Process Instruction (IPI) 0770-104, Shipboard and Ashore Hot Work Precautions, Section V: Training/Skill will not be made part of the amendment due to the document being FOUO. However, the document shall be provided hereafter only upon written request to the Government submitted to: MARMC_NRFK_411_PROCUREMENT@navy.mil

Please carefully review your Fire Watch Training Plan for completeness and accuracy.

In order to be considered for evaluation, The Fire Watch Training Plan shall be emailed to MARMC_NRFK_411_PROCUREMENT@navy.mil no later than 2:00 PM (EST) on Tuesday, December 2, 2014.

All other provisions of this solicitation remain in effect.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

RMC L-2-0018 REQUIRED SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS FOR THIS SOLICITATION

NOTE: When submitting proposals, handwritten signatures are required.

Electronic signatures are NOT authorized

GENERAL

In addition to the hard copies stipulated, the entire proposal, which includes section A through M of the solicitation, technical proposal and past performance proposal, must be submitted electronically on compact disk (CD) using Microsoft Office 2010 applications or readable with Adobe Acrobat. All electronic files shall be protected or made read-only prior to submission.

The entire solicitation has been posted to the FedBizOpps web site at https://www.fbo.gov/. Sections A through M have been posted in one file as a Microsoft Word document. All attachments in Section J have been provided individually as either a Microsoft Word document or a PDF file and are also available on the FedBizOpps web site.

Exhibits A- E are located in a file titled “Solit-ExhibitsA-E.xls”.

Offerors should electronically fill out all unit prices (in the yellow highlighted fields) for all five tabs (or worksheets) named “Base Year”, “Second Year (Option I)”, “Third Year (Option II)”, “Fourth Year (Option III)”, and “Fifth Year (Option IV)”.

Please note that the “Total Estimate” for each year will populate into the “Totals” tab (or worksheet) automatically. DO NOT FILL ANYTHING INTO THE “Totals” WORKSHEET. The totals on the “Totals” tab of this exhibit must match the totals inserted into Section B of your proposal, pages 2 through 9 of this solicitation.

Offerors should also electronically complete Section B (starting on page 2 of the solicitation) in the Microsoft Word document provided. In providing the electronic copy of the solicitation, save the latest copy of the conformed solicitation to your hard drive and fill out Section B. Scan a copy of the completed SF 33 and provide that file electronically.

Offerors are required to submit their proposals in three separate parts as follows:

Offerors are required to submit their proposals as follows: Technical (Part I) and Past Performance (Part II) of the proposal shall be furnished in separate binders and (collectively) shall not exceed 100 pages, single spaced, legibly typewritten on white bond paper, printed single sided only, with one-inch margins, in a type size no smaller than 12 point, on 8 ½ by 11 inch pages. Foldouts are permitted, but must be 8 1/2 by 11 inches folded. Size of the pages must be uniform; tables, figures and charts may be reduced. No price information shall be included in Part I or Part II. Clarity and completeness of the proposal is of the utmost importance. The proposal shall be written in a practical, clear and concise manner. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentations beyond what is sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are not desired. The offeror should use flow charts and tables wherever possible in order to provide a concise presentation of their response. Offerors shall respond to all requirements of the solicitation document. Offerors are cautioned not to alter or disassemble the solicitation. Each page of every copy should be affixed with the date, solicitation number, offeror’s name and following legend: Source Selection Information, See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

Part I - Technical Proposal - Original and 3 hard copies along with an electronic copy are required to include all data and information required for evaluation, excluding any reference to the cost/price aspects of the offer.

Part II - Past Performance Proposal - Original and 3 hard copies along with an electronic copy are required to include all data and information required for evaluation, excluding any reference to the cost/price aspects of the offer.

Part III – Price Proposal – Original and 1 hard copy required along with an electronic copy of the complete solicitation (Sections A through M and the SF-33) with prices filled in Section B (electronically not manually) and inserted behind the SF-33. Be sure to also include a hard copy and an electronic copy of Exhibits A-E.

The proposals shall contain no classified material. It is the sole responsibility of the offeror to ensure that the electronic media submitted is virus free and can be opened and read by the Government. If the electronic media cannot be opened and read by the Government, the offeror shall have a reasonable amount of time, typically 72 hours, after notification of the same to correct the deficiency. After that time, if the electronic media cannot be opened and read by the Government, the offer may be ineligible for award. In case of conflict between the electronic copy of the proposal and the paper copy of the proposal, the electronic copy shall take precedence.

In the event any portion of the proposals is prepared or written by anyone who is not a bona fide employee of the firm submitting the proposals, a certificate to this effect shall be furnished. The certificate shall be signed by a responsible officer of the offeror and shall also identify the person’s name, employment capacity, the name of the person’s firm, the relationship of that firm to the offeror, and the portion of the proposals the person wrote.

PROPOSAL CONTENT

The format of each offeror's proposal shall be as stated below and in the exact order listed below. The intent is not to restrict the offerors in the manner in which the proposal is presented, but rather to ensure a certain degree of uniformity in the format of the responses for evaluation purposes. Part I (Technical) is comprised of minimum capabilities and facilities requirements and will be rated Pass/Fail. Part II (Past Performance) consists of the following sub-factors: Technical (Quality of Product), Schedule (Timeliness of Performance), and Management. Part III (Price Proposal) is comprised of the complete solicitation (Sections A through M), including Standard Form 33 and the prices set forth in Schedule B.

Note 1: Contractor must provide one of the following statements in regards to clause HQ L-2-0005, Notification of Potential Organizational Conflict(s) of Interest. The Contractor has determined:

____ (i) that a potential organizational conflict of interest does not exist, at any tier

____ (ii) that a potential organizational conflict of interest may exist as described below and when a mitigation plan was provided to the PCO.

PART I - TECHNICAL (RATED PASS/FAIL)

a. The proposal should clearly demonstrate that the offeror has access to red and green badged personnel in sufficient numbers to support the requirements of the solicitation, and a Facility security clearance, at the Confidential level, issued by Defense Security Services. If the offeror lacks access to sufficient red and green badged personnel the proposal must contain a plan for acquiring red and green badged personnel. If the offeror does not have a facility security clearance at the Confidential level, the proposal must contain a plan for acquiring a facility clearance. The plans must demonstrate that the offeror fully understands the processes and procedures for obtaining red and green badged personnel and a facility security clearance. Statement that the prospective offeror understand, can, or will comply with the contract requirements are considered inadequate.

b. Training Plans –

Tank Watch Training Plan - This factor will be evaluated to determine compliance with NNSY Industrial Process Instruction (IPI) 0176-456A, CH-10, 7/11/13, Appendix A, Confined and Poorly Ventilated Enclosed Space Watch including PS-S9041. Training Plans will be evaluated as pass or fail. Training plans determined not in compliance will be rated as fail and the offeror will no longer be considered for award.

Fire Watch Training Plan – This factor will be evaluated to determine compliance with NNSY Industrial Process Instruction (IPI) 0770-104, Shipboard and Ashore Hot Work Precautions, Section V: Training/Skill. Training Plans will be evaluated as pass or fail. Training plans determined not in compliance will be rated as fail and the offeror will no longer be considered for award.

c. Proposals that fail any one of the two non-cost factors rated pass/fail will be excluded from further consideration. Proposals must pass each of the two non-cost rated pass/fail factors above to be considered for award.

PART II - PAST PERFORMANCE DATA

a. The Government will evaluate past performance as a factor for award. To allow for the evaluation as described in Section M of the solicitation, the Government intends to review Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings and other existing past performance ratings on relevant contracts. In addition, the Government may evaluate the past performance of significant subcontractors based on percentage and/or nature of work as included in the proposal and consider such past performance when assigning a rating. Past performance information is limited to no more than three years from the date of the solicitation. The Government may also review other relevant past performance information contained in either local or other MARMC files, from other Government sources, such as the Military Sealift Command or from Non-Governmental sources. General trends in a contractor’s performance will also be considered. The contractor, in performing this Contract, will be subject to a past performance assessment in accordance with FAR 42.15 and the Department of the Defense Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Policy Guide in effect on the date of award and when each option year is invoked. All information contained in this assessment may be used, within the limitations of FAR 42.15, by the Government for future source selection in accordance with FAR 15.304 when past performance is an evaluation factor for award.

b. Each offeror has the responsibility to provide in its proposal any information regarding its past performance of contracts similar to the Government’s requirements that it would like the Government to consider. Such information should include substantial subcontractors or teaming partner agreements and may be in the nature of:

(1) Additional information which the Government has readily available, for example, data in the CPARS system;

(2) Information which the offeror considers essential to the Government’s evaluation of Section M; or

(3) Explanatory information of substandard or poor performance and the corrective actions taken to prevent a recurrence.

c. The Government reserves the right to determine the relevancy of such information and to verify statements and representations made in an offeror’s proposal. Any information provided must be in sufficient detail with points of contact to enable the Government to obtain information for an evaluation in accordance with the Past Performance in Section M. Summary lists of contracts or incomplete data may not be considered.

d. Offerors shall provide a Past Performance Reference List (Attachment J-13) listing at least three recent, similar contracts (contracts performed within the last three years and with a value of $100,000 or greater). If your firm has no contracts of this dollar value, provide the most recent contracts that are similar with the greatest dollar value. The reference list sheet shall include the following for each contract listed:

(1) Contract number, type of contract, and CPARS or PPI available for evaluation.

(2) Provide the name, reference’s firm/agency, title/position, fax number, phone number, and e-mail address for two references on each of the contracts. The references must be customer personnel most familiar with your performance on each of these contracts. The references should be persons involved in performance under the contracts such as: project managers, contracting officer’s representatives, and marine surveyors. (Do not list the Procurement Contracting Officer.)

e. The offeror shall forward the Past Performance Information (PPI) survey (Attachment J-14) to each reference listed for a contract on the Past Performance Reference List (Attachment J-13) form, who shall complete the required form. (If a CPARS is available, the PPI survey is not required.) The completed PPI survey shall be submitted by the reference directly to MARMC Procuring Office, Lyn Sylfest, Code 411 at FAX number (757) 396-1762 or e-mail to NSSA_RMC_NRFK_411_Procurement@navy.mil. The offeror shall monitor the submission of the PPI survey to ensure that the MARMC Procuring Office receives it by proposal closing. NOTE: If a CPARS has been completed for the referenced contract, do not submit any PPI’s for that contract unless it is an IDIQ contract that involves a timeframe that was not covered by the CPARS. Contractors need to clearly indicate on the Past Performance Reference List if CPARS, PPI’s or, in the case of IDIQ references, if both CPARS and PPI’s are to be utilized to perform the evaluation.

f. Offerors shall provide a narrative explanation on each of the contracts cited in J-13 describing how they are similar in scope, magnitude, or complexity to the work being solicited, or that your firm has no relevant experience. Offerors shall also indicate the objectives achieved and any cost growth or schedule delays encountered. For any Government contracts, which did not meet original requirements with regard to cost, schedule, or technical performance, include a brief explanation of the reason(s) for such shortcomings and any demonstrated corrective actions taken to avoid recurrence. The offeror shall also provide a copy of any cure notices or show cause letters received on each contract listed above and a description of any corrective action by your firm or proposed subcontractor. This also includes any contracts terminated for default, in whole or in part, during the past five years.

NOTE: It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that all reference information is current and accurate. Prior to designating a reference, the offeror shall contact each reference to alert them that they will receive a PPI survey and that their responses will be confidential. If the reference does not respond or the response is inadequate, the contract may not be able to be included as part of the evaluation.

PART III - PRICE PROPOSAL

The price proposal shall include all contract line items as delineated within Section B and Exhibits A-E of the solicitation. The pricing information shall be complete and in accordance with the following:

a. Separate pricing information shall be submitted for each year of the services specified in Section B and Exhibits A-E of the solicitation.

b. The offeror shall enter his proposed prices in Section B and Exhibits A-E of the solicitation for each contract line item and submit the entire solicitation (Section A through M).

c. When submitting a proposal, the contractor shall not enter figures manually for Section B and Exhibits A-E on the proposal hard copy. The contractor shall complete Section B (MS Word 2010) and Exhibits A-E (MS Excel 2010) of the solicitation electronically as provided. Once Section B and Exhibits A-E are completed electronically, the contractor shall print and insert a hard copy into the proposal and include the CD.

d. The offeror shall describe how compliance with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting will be achieved.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

RMC M-1-0003 BASIS FOR AWARD (APRIL 1998)

a. The purpose of the proposal evaluation is to assure impartial and comprehensive examination of competitive proposals and to select one or more contractors whose proposal and evaluated capabilities offer optimum satisfaction of program requirements. Statements and representations made in the offeror’s proposal may be subject to verification during on-site survey by Navy evaluators. The Government reserves the right to award without discussion.

b. Award will be made to the responsible offeror or offerors whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is deemed most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Prospective offerors are forewarned that award may not be made to the offeror with the lowest price or cost to the Government if award to another offeror affords the Government a greater overall value. Non-price factors (Technical and Past Performance) taken together will be more important than price. However, as non-price factors equalize among competing proposals, price may assume a greater degree of importance.

c. The Relative Importance assigned to the evaluation factors will be:

d. Evaluation Factors:

PART I – TECHNICAL (RATED PASS/FAIL)

(1) Offerors must submit a list of employees that hold red badges along with documentation that the offeror has a facility security clearance, issued by the Defense Security Services, at the CONFIDENTIAL LEVEL. The number of red badge employees must be sufficient to support the requirements of the solicitation. If an offeror does not have current red badge employees, in sufficient numbers to support the requirements of the solicitation, and/or does not have a current facility security clearance, a plan for obtaining sufficient red badge employees and/or a facility security clearance must be submitted. Offerors who do not submit a list of red badge employees and documentation of a facility security clearance or a plan to obtain red badge employees and facility security clearance may be excluded from further consideration.

(2) Training Plans –

Tank Watch Training Plan - This factor will be evaluated to determine compliance with NNSY Industrial Process Instruction (IPI) 0176-456A, CH-10, 7/11/13, Appendix A, Confined and Poorly Ventilated Enclosed Space Watch including PS-S9041. Training Plans will be evaluated as pass or fail. Training plans determined not in compliance will be rated as fail and the offeror will no longer be considered for award.

Fire Watch Training Plan – This factor will be evaluated to determine compliance with NNSY Industrial Process Instruction (IPI) 0770-104, Shipboard and Ashore Hot Work Precautions, Section V: Training/Skill. Training Plans will be evaluated as pass or fail. Training plans determined not in compliance will be rated as fail and the offeror will no longer be considered for award.

(3) Proposals that fail any one of the two non-cost factors rated pass/fail will be excluded from further consideration. Proposals must pass each of the two non-cost rated pass/fail factors above to be considered for award.

PART II - PAST PERFORMANCE

This factor will be evaluated to determine the contractor’s performance risk for the subject solicitation. In determining the relevancy of the data, the Government will give greater consideration to contracts requiring the same or similar type and complexity of work required by the solicitation. In addition, the Government may evaluate the past performance of significant subcontractors based on percentage and/or nature of work as included in the proposal and consider such past performance when assigning a rating. Past performance information is limited to no more than three years from the date of the solicitation. For purposes of this solicitation, the Government considers an offeror’s past performance of the following types of contract/work to be the most relevant given the type of effort involved in this solicitation: Previous Fire Watch and Tank Watch on U.S. Navy or similar vessels performed at a Government facility, the contractor’s ability to meet contract schedule and requirements, and the ability to respond to and meet emergent requirements. More recent past performance information may be considered more relevant than older, or less recent, past performance information.

However, other types of contracts/work not meeting the most relevant definition as shown above may be considered as part of the past performance as well, if aspects of the past performance are deemed to have some bearing on the expected performance of the subject solicitation. Trends showing improving or deteriorating performance will also be considered. Past performance of subcontractors or teaming contractors will be considered to the extent warranted by their involvement in the proposed effort.

Past performance will not be rated on a pass/fail basis. The Government will measure how well an offeror has performed on relevant contracts in the past as an indicator of successful performance on the current requirement. If a firm lacks relevant past performance history, the evaluators will assign a Neutral rating.

The Government will review past performance information from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Past Performance Questionnaires received as well as past performance information from any other reasonable source. The Government’s evaluation will be focused on the following areas (of equal importance):

(a) Technical (Quality of Product)

(b) Schedule

(c) Management

NOTE: The offeror assumes the responsibility to insure that all references can be contacted by the Government and that all contract numbers, phone numbers, and fax numbers are accurate and current. If the references cannot be contacted or do not respond to information requests, the Government may be precluded from obtaining such past performance information.

The past performance evaluation results in a confidence assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. The rating of proposals under each factor should reflect the merits of the offeror’s response to the solicitation with respect to the factor and be indicative of the significance of a proposal’s strengths, weaknesses and risks. A past performance relevance and a performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

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.

The relevancy ratings in the following table shall be used:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in the table below:

Performance Confidence Assessments

PART III - PRICE PROPOSAL. The price proposal will be evaluated to determine whether it is reasonable and whether it reflects the offeror’s understanding of the work and ability to perform the contract. A price proposed that is unrealistic, unreasonable, or unbalanced may be rejected.

e. Competitive Range. If an award is 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 proposed price to the Government plus the technical proposal and past performance evaluations, and shall include only the offerors which 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 (see para. (f) below), 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.

f. Discussion and Proposal Revisions. For the Government’s intent regarding discussions, see FAR clause 52.215-1 included in Section L of the RFP. If discussions are applicable, all offerors selected to participate in discussions shall be advised of deficiencies in their offer, and shall be offered a reasonable opportunity to correct or resolve the deficiencies and to submit such price or cost, or other revisions to their offer, that may result from the discussions. However, if an offeror has already been afforded an opportunity to submit comments, rebutting statements or additional information concerning their technical proposal and 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 a reasonable opportunity for submission of written final proposal revisions shall be established, and those offerors selected to remain in the competitive range will be notified to submit final proposal revisions.

g. Final Evaluation of Offers. The initial evaluation of the offers within the Competitive Range may be revised in light of any additional information or data received during subsequent discussions (see para. (f) above) and/or furnished with final proposal revisions.

h. Basis for Award. A contract award(s) under this request for proposals (RFP) will be the result of an integrated assessment by the Contracting Officer of the results of the evaluation based on the evaluation factors and their relative order of importance as indicated above. The Government intends to make a best value determination for contract award. The Government may award any resulting contract to other than the lowest priced offeror, or other than the offeror with the highest evaluation rating for past performance.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf