Amendment_0004.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

TWO SHIP-TO-SHORE CONTAINER CRANES AT MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL, CONCORD, CA

Revise Factor 3, Small Business Utilization.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-May-2019

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 N6247019R1004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

21-Mar-2019

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 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

14-May-2019

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:

N6247019R1004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

M1 BASIS FOR AWARD

1. 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.

2. 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 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.

3. 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.

4. All technical factors are of equal importance to each other, and 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.

5. 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

M2 EVALUATION FACTORS.

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

Factor 1 – Corporate Experience Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Small Business Utilization Factor 4 – Safety

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.

2. The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors is the technical factors (Factors, 1, 3, &

4) are of equal importance to each other and, when combined are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment factor (Factor 2). When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance/performance confidence assessment factor combined (i.e., the non-cost/price evaluation factors) are approximately equal to price.

The importance of price will increase if the Offerors’ non-cost/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-cost/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 PROPOSAL THAT CONTAINS TERMS OR RESTRICTIONS SUCH THAT IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE

AN UNCONDITIONAL OFFER CANNOT BE ACCEPTED

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. The price proposal shall include the following:

1. Completed SF 1449, Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items

2. Signed SF 30 for ALL Amendments

3. Completed Price Schedule

4. A Standard Form 24, Bid Bond in the amount of 20% or $3 million, whichever is less

5. Copy of Contractor Representations and Certification from www.sam.gov

6. VETS-4212 Annual Report

7. Joint Venture Agreement and information identified in Section L2.3.1 (if applicable)

Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price. Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

1. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFP.

2. Comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE.

3. Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

4. Comparison of market survey results.

NON-COST/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, Corporate Experience:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall provide a maximum of five (5) examples of recent and relevant projects. A project is defined as a complete effort performed under a single task/delivery order or contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task/delivery order as a project.

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). Each project must have been completed within the last fifteen (15) years preceding the release date of the solicitation to be considered recent and relevant. Projects which are not yet completed will not be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as a project involving the design, manufacture, and delivery of a ship-to-shore container crane.

It is the Offeror’s responsibility to choose which projects best reflect the Offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the RFP requirements. The write-up for each project shall not exceed three (3) single-sided pages. In addition to the written portion, a general arrangement drawing of the crane shall be included on one (1) additional single-sided page, up to D sheet in size.

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 experience, projects should be submitted for each Joint Venture partner. Projects may be submitted for any joint venture partner; however, offerors who fail to submit experience for each joint venture partner may be considered less favorably. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

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 SF1449) 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), demonstration of 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.

(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, 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 G) 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 – Corporate 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 G), 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, Luke Clay, via email at luke.clay@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.

IMPORTANT: It is the responsibility of the offeror to provide accurate points of contact for each identified contract and current telephone numbers and/or email addresses. Failure to provide requested data, accessible points of contact, or valid phone numbers could result in a firm being considered less qualified.

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

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 1 – Corporate Experience. Offerors may also address any adverse past 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.

The criteria for recent and relevant past performance shall be as defined in Factor 1.

A copy of the blank Past Performance Questionnaire to be used for requesting client references is included as Attachment G.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: 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 on relevant projects 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 to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history, or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance and will receive a Neutral Confidence rating.

(3) Factor 3, Small Business Utilization:

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

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

a. Achievements: The Government will evaluate the following information for projects determined relevant under Factor 1 Corporate Experience:

(1) Small Business Achievement Record, Attachment H: All offerors (SBs and other than SBs) shall submit small business subcontracting information associated with each project cited under the Corporate Experience Factor whether performed as a prime or subcontractor. This information is required regardless of whether a subcontracting plan was incorporated into the contract award. This information shall be provided in the format provided in Attachment H, Small Business Achievement Record. If projects submitted under Corporate Experience were task orders, the small business participation achievements should be specific to the task order, not the contract. If a project cited under the Corporate Experience Factor was not performed by the offeror as a prime or subcontractor (i.e. the offeror is utilizing experience of subcontractor or corporate affiliate to fulfill Corporate Experience), Attachment H is not required. The proposal shall include an explanation for any project that does not require Attachment H.

(2) ISRs or Similar Reports: Offerors representing as other than small businesses shall also provide copies of the final or 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. If a project cited under the Corporate Experience Factor was not performed by the offeror as a prime or subcontractor (i.e. the offeror is utilizing experience of a team member, subcontractor, or corporate affiliate to fulfill Corporate Experience), ISRs/similar reports are not required.

The proposal shall include an explanation for any project for which ISRs/similar reports are not provided.

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. Acknowledging a goal was missed is not the same as providing an explanation for why a goal was missed.

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

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 Small Business Achievement Records, ISRs or similar reports, or any other requested information must be fully explained; failure to provide an adequate explanation may negatively impact your evaluation.

b. Small Business Participation and Commitment: A Small Business Participation and Commitment document specifies the offerors level of commitment to small business utilization in performance of this requirement. A Small Business Participation and Commitment Document is required from all offerors,

(1) Small Business Participation and Commitment Document, Attachment I: All offerors shall submit a small business participation and commitment strategy document, utilizing Attachment I., Small Business Participation and Commitment Strategy.

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 I consistent with efficient contract performance.

(2) Narrative: All offerors shall provide a supplemental narrative (limited to three (3) single-sided pages).

The narrative shall explain how proposed participation rates were established (including methodology used to develop the proposed rates).

The narrative shall also 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).

Offerors shall also describe binding agreements with subcontractors and post award roles for execution.

Note: (1) The small business participation and commitment strategies evaluated under this factor do not replace small business subcontracting plans. Offerors representing as other than small businesses must submit acceptable small business subcontracting plans using the SBSP (Attachment H) in order to be eligible for award (FAR 19.702(a)(1)). See the SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN section of INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS for subcontracting plan submission requirements.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: Offerors will be evaluated on the following:

a. Achievements: The extent to which the proposals and other performance information (i.e. small business achievement records and ISRs) 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.

The Government will also consider the extent of an offeror’s involvement in administration of the subcontracting plans for which achievement information is provided. If a project is determined not relevant under Factor 1 Corporate Experience, the small business achievement record and ISRs/similar reports for that project will not be considered in evaluation of Factor 3.

b. Small Business Participation and Commitment

Quantitative degree to which small business (including small business in all socio-economic categories) will participate in the acquisition relative to the total contract value.

The extent to which small business concerns are specifically identified by name and socio-economic category in the proposal The levels of small business participation proposed and the degree of commitment to use named sources (formal agreements/letters of intent).

Complexity and variety of the work small businesses are to perform.

Realism and the likelihood of success in achieving the small business objectives of this acquisition.

(4) Factor 4, 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): Include three previous complete calendar years’ worth of data, including calculated rates. 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 three previous complete calendar years’ worth of data, including calculated rates. If an offeror cannot submit an OSHA

DART, for any year, affirmatively state so and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART data negatively must be addressed as part of this factor submission.

(3) OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate: Submit the three previous complete calendar years’ worth of data, including calculated rates. 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 (2) single-sided 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)

- OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates

- Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

- Other sources of information available to the Government (as determined by Government)

The board will evaluate the EMR, DART and TRC Rates to determine the degree to which 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.

(End of Summary of Changes)