N68836-13-R-0084_Amdt_02.doc

DOC document 77 KB Posted

Attached to
Personal Protective Equipment
Solicitation number
N68836-13-R-0084
Issued by

About this file

Clarifications to bidder questions.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
N68836-13-R-0084_Amdt_08.doc DOC document
N68836-13-R-0084_Conformed_with_changes.doc DOC document
N68836-13-R-0084_Amdt_07.doc DOC document
N68836-13-R-0084_Amdt_06.doc DOC document
N68836-13-R-0084_Amdt_05.doc DOC document
N68836-13-R-0084_Amdt_04.doc DOC document
N68836-13-R-0084_Amdt_03.doc DOC document
N68836-13-R-0084_Amdt_01.doc DOC document
N68836-13-R-0084.doc DOC document
N68836-13-R-0084.doc DOC document

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

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 02 CLARIFICATIONS

Question 1:

Please clarify if the contractor needs security clearance for bidding on this project or only the delivery personnel who would deliver the goods to the base require security clearance.

Answer:

Only the delivery personnel need the clearance.

Question 2:

Which address do I send the solicitation to? Also, do I just fill out the 300 page solicitation and amendments and send those in?

Answer:

Mail proposal in to address in Block 9, page 1. Yes, you are required to fill in the appropriate sections of the solicitation, amendments and the pricing for each SUBCLIN. See Clause 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items and Clause 52.212-2 – Evaluation – Commercial Items for information of what is required to be filled out and submitted.

Question 3:

Reference subject solicitation, we kindly requests your assistance in clarifying the evaluation criteria for the Past Performance Survey on page 302. Please note that there is not a column marked “Outstanding” in the survey nor is the evaluation criteria defined for “Outstanding”. Was the column for “Outstanding” mistakenly omitted from the document table or was the rating criteria of “Outstanding” referenced in error on the survey NOTE? Please clarify.

Answer:

Outstanding has been changed to read Acceptable on the survey form. There is no

Outstanding column.

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

PAST PERFORMANCE SURVEY

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY

COVER SHEET

Request for Proposal Number: N68836-13-R-0084, Submit completed Cover Sheet and Survey via fax or email to:

CONTRACTING DEPARTMENT

Fleet & Industrial Supply Center

Attn: NANCY L. ENOS

110 Yorktown Avenue, 3rd Floor

Jacksonville, FL 32212-0097

Phone: (904) 542-1246 Fax: (904) 542-1095 e-mail: nancy.enos@navy.mil Name and address of offeror questionnaire is being completed for:

Name, title and phone number of person completing questionnaire:

Name/Title:

Phone Number:

Provide relevant information:

Name of company: ___________________________________________________________

Contract Number: _____________________________________________________________ Contract Type: ______________________________________________________________

Contract Amount: ______________________________________________________________

Contract Period of Performance (including all options) _________________________________

Product/Service Description: _____________________________________________________

Length of time your firm has been involved with this company:__________________________

RATING SCALE

Please use the following ratings to answer the questions. If you are unable to rate an item because it was not a requirement, never an issue, or you have no knowledge of the item in question, then you should mark “NA”.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Acceptable - The company’s performance was satisfactory and you would consider doing business with them again. There were minor performance problems which were satisfactorily corrected.

Unacceptable - The company’s performance was entirely unsatisfactory and you would not do business with them again under any circumstances. There were serious performance issues with the contractor for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.

Neutral - No record exists.

NOTE:

For statements indicating “Unacceptable” or “Acceptable”, please provide an explanation in the comments section of the survey.

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY

Neutral
Unacceptable
Acceptable

A. QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE:

(1) The Contractor provided a product or service that conformed to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship.

(2) The Contractor submitted accurate reports.

(3) The Contractor utilized personnel that were appropriate to the effort performed.

B. COST CONTROL:

(1) The Contractor performed the effort within the estimated cost/price.

(2) The Contractor submitted accurate invoices on a timely basis.

(3) The Contractor demonstrated cost efficiencies in performing the required effort.

(4) The actual costs/rates realized closely reflected the negotiated costs/rates.

C. SCHEDULE:

(1) The tasks required under this effort were performed in a timely manner and in accordance with the period of performance of the contract.

(2) The Contractor was responsive to technical and/or contractual direction.

D. BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS:

(1) The Contractor demonstrated effective management over the effort performed.

(2) The Contractor maintained an open line of communication so that the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and/or

Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) were apprised of technical, cost, and schedule issues.

(3) The Contractor presented information and correspondence in a clear, concise, and businesslike manner.

(4) The Contractor promptly notified the COR, TPOC, and/or

Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent issues.

(5) The Contractor cooperated with the Government in providing flexible, proactive, and effective recommended solutions to critical program issues.

(6) The Contractor made timely award to, and demonstrated effective management of, its subcontractors.

(7) The Contractor demonstrated an effective small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program.

Neutral
Unacceptable

Acceptable

E. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

(1) The products/services provided adequately met the needs of the program.

(2) The Contractor was able to perform with minimal or no direction from the COR or the TPOC.

(3) I am satisfied with the performance of the Contractor under this effort.

F. KEY PERSONNEL:

(1) The labor turnover in key personnel labor categories was minimal and did not adversely affect Contractor performance.

(2) The Contractor proposed qualified personnel to fulfill the requirements of the contract.

G. OTHER:

(1) Would you award this firm another contract? ( ) Yes ( ) No If you answered “No” provide an explanation.______________________________________________________________________

(2) Was the contract terminated for default? ( ) Yes ( ) No

If you answered “Yes”, provide an explanation. ___________________________________________

COMMENTS: (Required for ALL Unacceptable Ratings)

Print Name/Title

Signature

Phone Number

Date

(End of Summary of Changes)

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .