SF30_Amend_0003.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

140T PORTAL CRANE, PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD

See Summary of Changes

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 29-Mar-2018

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N6247018R2003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Feb-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

29-Mar-2018

CODE

COMMANDER NAVFAC ATLANTIC

NAVY CRANE CENTER

NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD

BLDG 491

PORTSMOUTH VA 23709-5000

N62470 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6247018R2003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0003

Specification N62470-18-R-2003 is changed as follows:

SD-12 Transport Manual Item i. should read: "Shipment of cranes via barge may be acceptable in inland waters if the Contractor can show that the loads imposed on the crane by shipping via barge do not exceed the loads imposed on the crane by shipping via ship."

2.3.2.12 Travel Drives

Delete the first sentence and replace it with: "Travel drives shall be electrically driven with the travel motors mounted such that the motor centerline is at or above the travel wheel centerline."

2.3.3.15 Hotel Power and Associated Cables

Delete the fifth sentence and replace it with: "A powered cable reel (or equal) which allows connection to a hotel electrical connection shall be provided with a minimum length of 105 ft of cable."

2.3.3.15.1 Shore Power

Delete the first sentence and replace it with: "Shore power shall be sized to allow simultaneous operation of the largest drive system and ancillary loads with rated capacity at rated speeds and at operating wind."

**These changes are reflected in the following attachment: N62470-18-R-2003 SpecRev1

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been deleted:

52.246-17

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

M1 BASIS FOR AWARD

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.

Tthe 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 later 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.

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.

M2 EVALUATION FACTORS

The solicitation requires the evaluation of price and the following non-cost/price factors:

Factor 1 – Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm Factor 2 – Small Business Utilization Factor 3 – Safety Factor 4 – Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects

The distinction between experience and past performance is that experience pertains to the volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work described under the definition of recent, relevant projects, 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.

The relative order of importance of the non-price evaluation factors is the technical factors (Factors, 1, 2, 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 non-price evaluation factors) are approximately equal to price.

The importance of price will increase if the Offerors’ non-price proposals are considered essentially equal in terms of overall quality, or if price is so high as to significantly diminish the value of a non-price proposal’s superiority to the Government. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

(a) PRICE: Submit one (1) original price proposal with one (1) CD in Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) format. The price proposal must be separate from the non-price proposal and clearly labeled as price.

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

1. Completed SF33, Solicitation, Offer and Award (Blocks 12-18)

2. Completed Price Schedule (Section B)

3. VETS-4212 Annual Report

4. Standard Form 24, Bid Bond

5. Copy of Contractor Representations and Certifications from the System for Award

Management (SAM) website at www.sam.gov.

6. The latest three year complete fiscal year financial statements, certified by an independent accounting firm, if available, or at least by an authorized officer of the organization. Submit evidence of availability of working/operating capital, which will be used for the performance of the resultant contract. For Joint Venture arrangements discuss the financial responsibilities among the companies.

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price. Total price consists of the basic requirement (see Section B of the solicitation). 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 Independent Government Estimate.

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

(iv) Comparison of market survey results.

(b) NON-PRICE FACTORS: Submit one (1) original non-price proposal with two (2) hard copies and one (1) CD in Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) format addressing the following:

(1) Factor 1 Recent and Relevant Experience of the Firm:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall provide a maximum of five (5) examples of recent and relevant projects. The Offeror shall clearly demonstrate recent and relevant experience of the firm on projects similar in size, scope and complexity to the requirements described in the Request for Proposals (RFP) completed within the last five (5) years preceding the release date of the solicitation. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as a project involving a crane with a sixty (60) ton or greater main hoist, luffing boom hoist and rotating upper works. The projects presented must also demonstrate the ability to perform all of the following (NOTE: all abilities are not anticipated to be demonstrated in every project, but each project must demonstrate experience in at least one of these abilities to be considered relevant): use of an on-board diesel, site survey/investigation, design, fabrication, assembly, crane installation, crane testing, and operational training. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to choose which projects best demonstrate experience with the above noted abilities and reflect the Offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the RFP requirements.

Given the nature of the work required by this solicitation, it is anticipated that the Offeror may be a Joint Venture, Partnership, LLC or other entity consisting of more than one entity. The Offeror may utilize recent, relevant experience of a subcontractor, partner, or, team member that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement to demonstrate recent, relevant experience required under this evaluation factor.

Major aspects mean 10% or more of the dollar value of the work required by the solicitation.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, recent and relevant experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. If the Joint Venture does not have such experience, relevant experience shall be submitted for each Joint Venture partner. JV Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) recent and relevant projects. Projects submitted by Joint Ventures, where the Joint Venture firms performed together (either as partners or in a prime-sub relationship) may be viewed more favorably than contracts submitted in which the Joint Venture firms did not perform together. Any supporting agreements, including Joint Venture agreements, evidencing the relationship between two or more business entities (e.g. letters of intent, teaming agreements, etc.) shall be submitted with the proposal.

If the offeror uses a proposed subcontractor(s) to demonstrate corporate experience, the offeror must do the following: provide a letter of commitment from the subcontractor and the subcontractor’s DUNS number if available; submit at least one (1) contract for the proposed subcontractor(s); and demonstrate how the proposed subcontractor will use that corporate experience in the performance of the contract.

If the offeror uses affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF33) to demonstrate recent, relevant experience the offeror shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies will have meaningful involvement in the performance of this contract. Meaningful involvement is demonstrated when the proposal: 1) clearly states the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member company's specific commitment of technical resources (e.g. personnel, equipment) that will be provided or relied upon for contract performance; and 2) describes specific aspects of the project that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member company will self-perform or manage on behalf of the Offeror in performance of the contract.

Failure to submit letters of intent, teaming agreements (including Joint Venture agreements), meaningful involvement, or other evidence of commitment may result in the Government not evaluating the recent, relevant experience of the subcontractor, partner, team, or JV member.

For each project the offeror shall complete the Corporate Experience Questionnaire included as Attachment E.

All information shall be provided as requested on the form.

IMPORTANT: It is the offeror’s responsibility to clearly explain and demonstrate to the Government how its work experience, and the experience of each teaming partner (if applicable) in each submitted contract is relevant to the contract requirements in thissolicitation. If the offeror does not clearly explain how its experience(s) is/are relevant to the contract requirements in this specification, the Government may determine that the submitted contract experience is not relevant.

The Recent, Relevant Experience submittal (Corporate Experience Questionnaires) shall be limited to no more than fifteen (15) single-sided pages (or three (3) single-sided pages per project) total.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. The assessment of the Offeror’s recent and 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 review only five (5) projects. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) project limit will not be considered.

(2) Factor 2 Small Business Utilization:

This Factor assesses both the historical achievements in utilizing small business concerns as subcontractors and proposed small business participation and commitment strategies.

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

1. Achievements: All offerors shall provide a narrative (limited to two single-sided/one double-sided pages) to describe their achievements in supporting the Government’s policy to provide maximum practicable opportunities for small business (SB), veteran-owned small business (VOSB), service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) small business, small disadvantaged business (SDB), and women-owned small business (WOSB) concerns to participate as subcontractors consistent with efficient contract performance. In support of narrative submissions:

a. All offerors shall submit small business subcontracting information associated with each project cited under the Corporate Experience Factor in the format provided in Attachment E, Small Business Subcontracting Record.

b. Offerors representing as other than small businesses shall also provide copies of the most current individual subcontracting reports (ISRs) associated with each project cited under the Corporate Experience Factor if a small business subcontracting plan was required by the contract. If such projects were completed under specific task orders, provide ISRs for the overall contract. For cited projects with state and local government agencies, provide similar subcontracting performance reports if required by the contracts. When not specifically addressed in the ISR or similar report, offerors shall provide explanations for all instances of failures to meet dollar or percentage goals in individual subcontracting plans.

Notes: The Government reserves the right to consider achievements information on other recent, relevant projects from all available sources.

Offerors utilizing achievements information of team members or key subcontractors shall clearly demonstrate how these companies will have meaningful involvement in the management of the subcontracting program for this acquisition. If not, such achievement information will not be considered under this factor. If the offeror is a new joint venture, partnership or other entity consisting of more than one company, provide achievements information for each individual business entity(ies) that will be responsible for managing the subcontracting program and clearly describe those responsibilities.

Failure to provide ISRs or any other requested information must be fully explained and may negatively impact your evaluation.

2. Small Business Participation and Commitment: All offerors shall submit a small business participation and commitment strategy including all data elements shown in Attachment F, Small Business Participation and Commitment Strategy.

a. Identify in terms of dollar value and percentage of the total acquisition the extent of work the offeror will self-perform as the prime contractor. If submitting an offer as a joint venture, identify the percentage of work each member will be responsible for and indicate the size status of each member (e.g. small business, woman-owned small business, other than small business).

b. Include supplemental narratives (limited to four single-sided/two double-sided pages) to address other elements of the offeror’s strategy such as binding agreements covering post award roles for execution of the contract and specific initiatives and tools that will be employed under the contract to enhance small businesses opportunities to both participate in this acquisition and build capabilities to support future NAVFAC acquisitions.

c. The anticipated prime and first tier overall small business participation rate for this acquisition (i.e.

work to be performed by small businesses as the prime and/or subcontractors) is 20% of the contract value. Offerors are encouraged to exceed this percentage and seek meaningful levels of participation in each of the small business socioeconomic programs listed in Attachment E consistent with efficient contract performance. Offerors shall explain in their participation and commitment strategies how proposed participation rates were established. The small business participation and commitment strategy must be in agreement with any required small business subcontracting plan and will be made a part of the contract upon award.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which their proposals and other performance information available to the Government demonstrate a history of successfully supporting Government policies concerning utilization of small business concerns as subcontractors including, when applicable, achievements against established small business subcontracting plan goals. Offerors will also be evaluated on the levels of small business participation proposed and the degree of commitment to use named sources. The anticipated benefits of proposed initiatives and tools to enhance small business participation and capabilities will be considered. The Government will assess proposal realism and the likelihood of success in achieving the small business objectives of this acquisition.

Attachment F – Small Business Subcontracting Record Attachment G – Small Business Participation and Commitment Strategy

(3) 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. EMR, DART and TRC Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.)

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): Submit the three most recent 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. If the offeror has no EMR or premium, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affect the EMR and negative trends should be addressed as part of the factor submission.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate: Submit the three most recent complete calendar years’ worth of data. 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.

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

(4) 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 self-performed 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 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) Rate OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate Offeror Technical Approach to Safety Other sources of information available to the Government

The board will evaluate the EMR, DART and TRC Rates 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.

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 task orders under the contract, the degree to which innovations are being proposed that may enhance safety on this procurement, and to 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.

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. The Board may consider information from other sources of information available to the Government in evaluation of the EMR, DART and TRC Rates and the narrative.

(4) Factor 4 Past Performance:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Submit a completed CPARS evaluation with the proposal for each project submitted under Factor 1. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation (Attachment H) 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 - Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm. 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 H), 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, Lisa Sumpter, via email at lisa.sumpter@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.

The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification and additional information. The Government’s inability to contact any of the Offeror’s references or the unwillingness to provide the information requested may affect the Government’s evaluation of this factor.

Offerors may provide information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 1 – Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm and may address any adverse performance issues. Such explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) in total.

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/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.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant, recent detailed projects submitted under Factor 1. The Government will evaluate 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

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Contractor’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the requirements of the RFP.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance and will receive a Neutral Confidence rating.

(End of Summary of Changes)