N6339419R0017-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

The purpose of this amendment is to: (1) Provide responses to additional industry questions received to date; and (2) Revise Section M, Factor 2 Past Performance to define recency as projects completed w ithin five years prior to the closing date of the solicitation.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 5

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-Aug-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 N6339419R0017

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11-Jul-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 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

02-Aug-2019

CODE

NSWC PHD 022

4363 MISSILE WAY

PORT HUENEME CA 93043

N63394 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6339419R0017

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 0004 Q&A

QUESTION #1: Section L states that past performance is for work completed within the last five years. Section M states that relevant past performance is graded for work completed in last three years. Will the Government update the Section M criteria to five years to reflect Section L’s instructions?

RESPONSE: Section M has been revised to change the past performance criteria from three years to five years to reflect the instructions in Section L.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

The Government intends to award a single contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal offers the lowest total evaluated price while meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for all non-price factors. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall also be reviewed for compliance and adequacy for purposes of making a responsibility determination.

The Government may award to other than the Offeror with the lowest total price in the event the lowest price Offeror is found to be technically “Unacceptable.”

The Government intends to only award one contract. All, some, or none of the options may be exercised by the Government at its sole discretion. Offerors are required to price all Contract Line Item Number (CLINs) not categorized as Not Separately Priced (NSP).

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s understanding of the Government’s requirements and ability to perform the work. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to provide information and evidence which clearly demonstrates its ability to satisfactorily perform the contract requirements as stated in the solicitation. All information submitted as part of the proposal will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s capability to perform and understanding of the solicitation requirements.

An evaluation of “Unacceptable” in any single factor or subfactor may result in the Offeror’s proposal being rated “Unacceptable” overall, and eliminated from further consideration.

Each factor will be evaluated on a stand-alone basis; however, information contained in one factor of the proposal may be used to assist the Government in evaluating other factors of the proposal.

If it is determined that an offer is not in compliance with the page limitation of the volume of the proposal, pages above the specified page limit within each volume will be removed and will not be evaluated. Proposals that are not submitted in compliance to the hard-copy and electronic-copy requirements specified in Section L may also be subject to elimination.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the below factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Approach

Subfactor 1: Production Assembly in Accordance With SOW and TDP Subfactor 2: First Article and Factory Acceptance Testing in Accordance With TDP Subfactor 3: Physical Assets to be Used in Production and Testing

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Total Evaluated Price

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

FACTOR 1:– TECHNICAL APPROACH (VOLUME I)

The following subfactors will be evaluated to determine acceptability for Factor 1.

Subfactor 1: Production Assembly in Accordance With SOW and TDP

The Offeror will be evaluated to determine their ability to produce systems in accordance with the required delivery timeframes, quantities, product specifications and data contained in the TDP (Section J). Evaluations will consider the following:

a. The Offeror’s proposed Configuration Management (CM) process will be evaluated to determine the level of process documentation and the application of CM in support of, at a minimum, SOW paragraph 12; to determine the Offeror’s understanding of the CM requirements for this acquisition; and to determine whether the Offeror’s CM process and experience on programs of similar size and complexity are adequate to satisfy the requirements in this solicitation.

b. The Offeror’s proposed process(es) and experience in managing engineering changes or deviations to the TDP and controlling the insertion of those changes into the production line will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s demonstrated ability to understand and address engineering changes and updated production requirements, at a minimum, SOW paragraph 12.4. In addition, the Offeror will be evaluated on its approach in updating and verifying production line changes and processes.

c. The Offeror’s Quality Assurance (QA) process will be evaluated to verify that it is ANSI/ASQC Q9001 or ISO 9001 or equivalent, certified, to determine the level of process documentation and the level of compliance, at a minimum, with SOW paragraph 19. The Offeror’s FACAR system will be evaluated to determine its capability to support the requirements of SOW paragraph 12.5.

Subfactor 2: First Article and Factory Acceptance Testing in Accordance With TDP

The Offeror will be evaluated on the adequacy and availability of proposed personnel, facilities, physical test space area, test fixtures, test software and test equipment, as it pertains to the ability to understand test requirements and perform testing.

Subfactor 3: Physical Assets and Facilities to be Used in Production and Testing

The Offeror will be evaluated to determine if they have adequate infrastructure, capability, and capacity to produce and test the proposed systems identified in Section B of this solicitation. Production and schedule requirements shall assume maximum quantities including all options. The Offeror will be evaluated on the adequacy and availability of proposed personnel, production and test facilities, physical production and test space work area, production and test fixtures, test software and test equipment, as it pertains to the ability to demonstrate an acceptable approach and plan for passing Production Readiness Reviews and infrastructure for manufacturing and testing capability and capacity to meeting the solicitation requirements at maximum production levels.

Factor 1, Technical Approach (and related subfactors) will be characterized as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as follows:

Adjectival Rating Description

“ACCEPTABLE” Proposal provide adequate details and/or information to objectively assess that it clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

“UNACCEPTABLE” Proposal does not provide adequate details and/or information to objectively assess that it clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

FACTOR 2-PAST PERFORMANCE (VOLUME II)

The Past Performance Evaluation is an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the product and/or services outlined in the solicitation.

Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305. However, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. Therefore, past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis as follows:

Evaluation Determination Description

“ACCEPTABLE” Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown.

“UNACCEPTABLE” Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Past performance will be initially evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant, to the effort. For the purposes of this solicitation, recency is defined as projects completed within five years prior to the closing date of the solicitation. Common aspects of the relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of the product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

Second, the past performance evaluation will determine how well the Offeror performed on the prior contracts. If past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonable assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorable or unfavorable on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (“Neutral”) past performance. In the context of the acceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “Acceptable.”

FACTOR 3 – TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (VOLUME III)

The Total Evaluated Price Evaluation Factor will not be characterized as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The Government will perform cost/price analysis techniques on the Offeror’s proposed prices. For purposes of making an award decision, the Government will arrive at a Total Evaluated Price by adding the total price for all CLINs.

Priced offers will be evaluated for reasonableness and appropriateness of' proposed amounts and for the Offerors understanding of the proposal requirements.

The stepladder pricing will be evaluated by comparing the product of a randomly selected evaluated quantity (EQ) for each CLIN and the unit price associated with the randomly selected quantity for the CLIN. The randomly selected quantities will be selected prior to proposal evaluation.

Offerors are hereby advised the EQ in no way restricts the Government as to the number of units it may order under each CLIN. It is used solely for evaluation purposes. The Government reserves the right to order any quantity within a stepladder subject to the availability of funding at the time of initial contract award or option exercise.

The inclusion of option prices in arriving at a "Total Evaluated Price" does not obligate the Government to exercise all or any part of the options. The Government may reject an offer as materially unbalanced if prices for the basic requirement or prices for the option quantities are unreasonable in comparison to each other. An unbalanced offer or proposal is one that is based on prices significantly less than cost for some work and/or significantly overstated for other work.

4.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Contract will be awarded to the technically acceptable Offeror with the lowest Total Evaluated Price or LPTA.

An “Unacceptable” determination for any factor or subfactor will result in an “Unacceptable” proposal.

(End of Summary of Changes)