RFP N64498-24-R-4016 Amendment 3.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) Update to Section M, FACTOR 6 - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITTMENT, Section 1. SBPCD baseline small business Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) for small business has been udpated from 40% to 10% of the total proposed contract value (not subcontracting dollars).

2) Update of Attachment 1 - NSWCPD SBPCD RFP 24R4016 A3 w ith update to 10%.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 16-Jul-2024

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 N6449824R4016

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Jul-2024

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

16-Jul-2024

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER PHILA

CODE 0241, EMILY-REBECCA SIMPSON

EMILY-REBECCA.SIMPSON.CIV@US.NAVY.MIL

5001 SOUTH BROAD STREET

PHILADELPHIA PA 19112

N64498 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6449824R4016

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

M.1. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will utilize the subjective Tradeoff source selection process. This process allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and cost/price, and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal to achieve a best value contract award. The basis for award of a contract as a result of this solicitation will be an integrated assessment by the Contracting Officer of the results of the evaluation based on the evaluation factors and their importance as indicated below. The integrated assessment will include consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals. Ultimately, the source selection decision will take into account the Offeror's capability to meet the requirements of this solicitation on a timely and cost effective basis. The Government reserves such right of flexibility in conducting the evaluation as is necessary to assure placement of a contract is in the Government's best interest. Accordingly, the Government may award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or other than the Offeror with the highest evaluation rating.

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, in the Government’s estimation, provides the best value in response to the requirement.

M.2 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor (1) Technical Approach, Factor (2) Past Performance, Factor (3) Corporate Experience, and Factor (4) Total Evaluated Price are listed in descending order of importance. Factor (5) Quality Management System (QMS) and Factor (6) Small Business Participation will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and will not be considered in the best value tradeoff decision, however an Acceptable rating in this factor is required to be eligible for award. All best value evaluation factors other than Total Evaluated Price (Factor 4), when combined, are significantly more important than total evaluated price. However, when the non- cost/price factors are rated more equally between Offerors, Total Evaluated Price becomes more of a deciding factor in making the best value determination.

M.3 EVALUATION APPROACH

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s technical capability to perform the requirements in the solicitation, considering the Design Conformance to Requirements, Supportability Analysis and Logistics, and Program and Engineering Management, and Software Development Plan as specified herein and in Section L.

ELEMENT 1A. Design Conformance to Requirements

Offerors will be evaluated on whether the offeror has understanding of and conformance to the technical requirements of the RFP as follows:

The Government will review the offeror’s detailed description of the RSC design, features and characteristics in comparison to the solicitations SOW and Attachment A specifications.

The Government will evaluated whether the offeror describes a sound basis for conformance to the solicitations SOW and Attachment A specifications.

The Government will evaluated the Offeror’s identified areas of complexity and technical risks in EQT and the plan to address them to determine if the offeror understands the challenges of testing the equipment as specified in the solicitation’s SOW.

The Government will evaluate the analysis on how the proposed design meets the requirements.

At a minimum, the anlysis shall include the following elements:

Equipment Dimensions Weight Locations for cable entrances Locations for air exhaust and intake interfaces Equipment (an location in RSC Panel PC) requiring removal or disassembly for repair or maintenance Estimated Maintenance envelope Estimated Shock envelope Mounting Requirements

ELEMENT 1B. Supportability Analysis and Logistics

The Government will evaluate whether the Supportability Plan demonstrates that the vendor will employ logical components/technologies selection factors, will have components available for at least a ten (10) year period and has identified any potential risks to the supportability of components/technologies.

The Government will evaluate whether the Obsolescence Plan demonstrates how the vendor will submit CDRL A037 timely, how the offeror plans to monitor obsolescence, and how the solution to obsolescence may impact the price and delivery.

The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposed approach to training, equipment, drawings, associated lists, technical manuals, and provisions data for the RSC panel system. As well as Navy organization level maintenances demonstrates a full understanding of the requirements in Solicitation Attachment B.

ELEMENT 1C. Program and Engineering Management

The Government will evaluate the offeror's proposed Program Plan to see if it provides appropriate tasks and subtasks and durations for the following categories: Management Support, Systems Engineering, Product Development, ILS, Qualification, and Production.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's WBS and proposed staffing to see if it contains the appropriate labor categories and number of hours to deliver all end products.

ELEMENT 1D. SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Offerors will be evaluated on submitted Software Development Plan (SDP) shall be generated and implemented. The Software Development Plan (SDP) approach, experience, and rationale will be evaluated in accordance with Clause M-227-H001 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018).

Software Development Approach: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed software development approach for the system to be developed to ensure that he offeror understand the software development requirements of the solicitation and for compliance with the minimum content requirements stated in Section C.

Software Development Experience: The Government will evaluate offeror’s relevant previous experience in developing software of similar size and complexity as that being acquired with this solicitation.

Software Development Process Experience: The Government will evaluate the offeror’ previous relevant experience in developing software using the same or similar approach as proposed for this solicitation. The results of any relevant standard model-based process maturity appraisals performed within 24 months prior to proposal submission, and the use of proposed staff experienced in using the processes will be part of the evaluation criteria.

Table 1- Combined Technical/Risk Ratings – FACTOR 1 Technical

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

FACTOR 2– PAST PERFORMANCE

The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

There are (3) three aspects to the past performance evaluation: Recency, relevancy, and quality (including general trends in Contractor performance and source of information). The first is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is considered work performed within the past (3) three years. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming. With respect to relevancy, past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)) these are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror. The past performance evaluation conducted 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.

Table 2 -Past Performance Relevancy

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table 3 - Past Performance Confidence Assessments

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

FACTOR 3 – CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

Proposals will be evaluated based upon a comparison of the Offeror’s demonstrated experience to the work to be performed in the Statement of Work. Consideration will be given to the magnitude, complexity, and time of performance of the demonstrated experience relative to the services to be furnished under the present solicitation.

Table 4- Combined Technical/Risk Ratings – FACTOR 3 Corporate Experience

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

FACTOR 4 – TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE

The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. As defined in FAR 15.404, unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

PRICE EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for all CLINs. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404- 1(b)(2) for all CLINs. The proposed price for the Offeror’s proposal will be arrived at by by multiplying the offered price for each CLIN in Section B times the quantity for that CLIN, and totaling the result for all CLINs.

Total quantities and not-to-exceed amounts are estimates only to establish ceiling amounts, and do not necessarily reflect the total amount of ODCs that the Government will actually order. The Government may order less than the total quantities or may order up to the maximum quantities listed in Section B.

In the absence of adequate price competition, the Contracting Officer may request additional data per FAR 15.403-3 and as described in the solicitation provision 52.215-7010, Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data (JUL 2019).

FACTOR 5 – QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The Offeror’s QMS Level 1 and Level 2 Procedures relevant to the requirements of the solicitation, including the SOW, will be evaluated based on whether their content meets the requirements of ASQ/ANSI/ISO 9001:2015.

Table 5 – Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings - FACTOR 3

Acceptable

Proposal does demonstrate relevant procedures that meets the requirements of ASQ/ANSI/ISO 9001:2015.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not demonstrate relevant procedures that meets the requirements of

ASQ/ANSI/ISO 9001:2015.

FACTOR 6 - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT

1. Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD)

The Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) information will be used to evaluate the extent of your proposed participation/commitment to use small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime Offerors or small business subcontractors). Offerors will be evaluated on the extent small businesses are identified in the performance of the contract, and the nature of the Offeror’s commitment to use such firms. The baseline small business Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) for small business is 10% of the total proposed contract value (not subcontracting dollars). Proposals that do not use the total proposed contract value as the base in any calculations contained in the SBPCD, or that do not meet the MQR, will be considered unacceptable. Note: The above small business participation goals represent the PCO’s assessment of appropriate minimum participation (prime and 1st tier subs) expressed as a percentage of Total Contract Value (TCV). Offerors are encouraged to propose values greater than the MQR listed.

Offerors will be evaluated on the consistency of the proposed subcontracting commitment when compared to the information in its cost and technical proposal and its subcontracting plan. Overall small business dollar goals should be consistent from the Subcontracting Plan and SBPCD.

2. Small Business Participation Commitment Past Performance The Government will also evaluate each Offeror’s submitted supporting documents to assess its utilization of small business and its past performance in achieving goals and objectives established in prior Subcontracting Plans or Small Business Participation Commitment Documents. The Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror as well as data the Government develops and obtains through other sources (e.g., CPARS, eSRS reports and mentor-protégé agreements etc.).

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant small business participation past performance or for whom information on small business participation past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)).

Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) small business participation past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

Table 6- Small Business Participation Commitment Ratings

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION INSTRUCTIONS

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to enter into discussions with Offerors as it is determined by the Contracting Officer to be in the Government’s best interest.

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 most highly rated proposals.

DISCUSSION/FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

If the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are to be held, they shall indicate to, or discuss with, each Offeror still being considered for award; significant weaknesses, deficiencies, adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of Contracting Officer judgment. At the conclusion of discussions, each Offeror still in the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a final proposal revision. A final cut-off date for receipt of final proposal revisions will be established by the Contracting Officer.

Offerors are advised that technical proposals may be evaluated without consideration of any proposed subcontractor which is deemed to have an organizational conflict of interest.

(End of Summary of Changes)