Attachment 2 Amendment 02.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 revision Proposal Submission in Section L and Evaluation Factors in Section M to remove any reference to pricing.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-Dec-2020

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 N6660421Q0058

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

04-Dec-2020

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

15-Dec-2020

CODE

NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CTR. DIV., NPT.

STEPHANIE A. SMYTH, CODE 0221

CONTRACTS DEPARTMENT

1176 HOWELL STREET, BLDG. 1258

NEWPORT RI 02841

N66604 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6660421Q0058

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL SIUBMISSION

Offerors shall submit proposals by electronic means. All electronics submissions shall be sent to stephanie.a.smyth@navy.mil and must be received by the closing date and time located on the cover page of the SF 1449. Furthermore, a single electronic submission shall not exceed 5 megabytes. If this requires submission through multiple emails to send the complete proposal the first email shall include an accounting of each email to follow so the Government can determine it has a complete proposal. Proposal attachments must be in formats readable by Microsoft

Office or Adobe PDF.

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

1.1 General Information

All questions concerning this procurement, either technical or contractual, must be submitted via email. No direct discussion between the technical representative and prospective Offeror will be conducted. Questions and proposals shall be submitted to the following point of contact:

Name: Stephanie Smyth

Email: stephanie.a.smyth@navy.mil

1.2 Submission Requirements

a. Each Offeror shall submit its entire proposal electronically. The Government will evaluate each Offeror's understanding of the Government's requirements and ability to perform the work on the basis of its proposal. Offerors shall provide information and documentation in detail to clearly identify their overall qualifications.

b. Offerors shall comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposals; proposals that do not comply may be considered unacceptable and may render the Offeror ineligible for award.

1.3 Proposal Format

a. The proposal shall be submitted in the English language. The narrative material in the proposal shall be prepared in no smaller than 10 point font, single-spaced with no less than a one inch margin on all sides. No hyperlinks are allowed.

b. Proposals and all attachments shall be readable by Microsoft Office or Adobe

Acrobat. The technical portion of the proposal shall not exceed six (6) pages in

Length

c. Offerors are required to submit their proposals in separate volumes as follows:

VOLUME VOLUME TITLE MAXIMUM # OF PAGES

I Technical Proposal 6

II Past Performance 6

NOTE: Offerors shall not include classified material in the volumes.

d. Volume I shall not exceed a combined total page count of six (6) pages in length. NOTE: Cover Pages; Acronym Tables/Lists; Tables of Contents;

Resumes; are excluded from this page count.

e. Offerors shall provide a cover letter with the following information:

1. Solicitation number;

2. The name, address, email address, telephone numbers, and Cage Code, DUNS Number, and Tax Identification Number (TIN) of the Offeror;

3. A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation.

4. A statement that the proposal is valid through 80 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of proposals;

5. Names, titles, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation;

6. DCAA and DCMA office points of contact, including branch location, contact name, telephone number, and email address, (if applicable);

7. Name, title, and signature of a person authorized to sign the proposal;

and,

8. Identify all enclosures being transmitted as part of its proposal.

2.0 NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Technical Capability

The Offeror shall provide a minimum of three (3) automatic door repair services examples involving two or more individuals in accordance with the format requirements identified in the Statement of Work (SOW). Redact automatic door repair services examples if necessary.

2.2 Past Performance

a. The Offeror shall provide up to three (3) past performance references, if available, that reflect recent and relevant experience performed within three

(3) years of the solicitation closing date specified in this requirement. Past performance references were for a Government entity, the references shall include contract/task order number, contract/task order type, program name, total contract/task order cost, short description of work performed, and names and valid telephone numbers for the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), and Program Manager (PM). If past performance references were for an entity outside of the Government, the reference shall include company name, total cost, short description fo work performed, and names and valid telephone numbers of the company’s point of contact you worked with/for.

(1) Past performance references shall demonstrate the ability to handle the scope and breadth of the tasking in the SOW. Discuss how the references provided are relevant to the work being proposed.

(2) Each past performance reference shall not exceed two (2) pages per reference, for a total of six (6) pages.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

EVALUATION FACTORS

(a) Award will be made to the responsible Offeror meeting all requirements of the solicitation and whose proposal contains the combination of those criteria offering the best overall value to the Government. The best overall value to the Government will be determined by comparing the difference in value of technical (non-price) features of proposals.

(b) The Government intends to make a multiple award on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions with Offerors (except clarifications), but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical standpoint. 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.

(c) Non-Price Factors.

Offeror proposals will be evaluated and assigned one of the adjectival ratings included in this solicitation (refer to Clause UW M-2-0001) for each of the following non-price factors and sub factors.

1. Technical Proposal

The Government will evaluate Offerors automatic door repair service document examples in accordance with the guidelines identified in the

Statement of Work (SOW).

2. Past Performance.

The past performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the

Government has in the Offeror’s ability to provide products and services that meet its customers’ needs based on a demonstrated record of performance. The Government may consider past performance information contained in the Past Performance Information Retrieval

System (PPIRS) and the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity

Information System (FAPIIS). The Government may also contact all or some of each Offeror’s customers to obtain past performance information.

The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact, and contact references other than those provided by the Offeror. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

(d) Relative Importance. The following table indicates all significant factors and sub factors that will be considered in awarding the purchase order:

FACTORS SUB FACTORS

Technical Capability (None)

Past Performance (None)

Technical Capability sub factors are listed in descending order of importance.

The relative importance of the factors is as follows: Technical Capability and Past

Performance are of equal importance.

(e) Adjectival Ratings

1. The Government will perform an evaluation of the non-price evaluation factors and sub factors based on the Offeror’s proposal. This evaluation focuses on strengths and weaknesses of the Offeror’s proposal, resulting in the assignment of an adjectival rating for each factor and sub factor.

2. Combined Technical/Risk Rating: The following combined technical/risk ratings include consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

The following adjectival ratings/descriptions in Table 1 shall be used for the

Technical Capability evaluation factors and sub factors:

Table 1: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements; contains multiple strengths; and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements; contains at least one 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/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

DEFINITIONS

Weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency is defined as a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

See FAR 15.001.

Risk is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit, or exceeds specified performance, or capability requirements, in a way that will be advantageous to the

Government during contract performance.

(f) Past Performance Evaluation

The past performance evaluation will result in an assessment of the Offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each

Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data),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 generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

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. The criteria to establish what prior performance is recent and relevant shall be unique to each source selection and shall be should be given to those aspects of an Offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. 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.

There are four levels of relevancy as shown below. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance 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.

Rating Description

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.

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)). 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. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment.

The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

(g) Performance Confidence Assessment

In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings shown below. (Reference FAR 15.305(2) for information on assigning an unknown/neutral confidence rating.)

Rating Description

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

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown

Confidence

(Neutral)

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 Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

DEFINITIONS

Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant (Note:

contracts performed within the last three years are considered recent for this requirement).

Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

(End of Summary of Changes)