Solicitation_Amendment.docx

N6893619R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 15-Aug-2019 03:00 PM to 12-Nov-2019 03:00 PM.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

L – [01] CONTENT OF PROPOSALS (4/11/2019)

PART A GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.0 GENERAL

The Offeror must respond to all requirements of the solicitation and not alter or rearrange the solicitation. The Offeror is advised that the Government may incorporate any portions of the Offeror’s proposal into the resulting contract.

In presenting material in the proposal, the Offeror is advised that quality of information is more important than quantity. Clarity, brevity, and logical organization shall be emphasized during proposal preparation. Statements that the prospective Offeror understands, can comply with, or will comply with, the specifications, and paraphrasing the requirements or parts thereof without supporting information are considered inadequate by the Government, and may result in assessing weaknesses and/or deficiencies.

The Offeror must include any data that illustrates the adequacy of the various assumptions, approaches, and solutions to problems. Failure to address a specific factor or subfactor clearly may be considered a deficiency. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentation materials beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal is neither necessary nor desired.

The Government advises the Offeror that taking exception or deviating from any term or condition of the RFP may result in the assessment of a deficiency to the proposal.

Throughout these instructions, a “principal subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor who provides at least 20% of the proposed total price (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee), for the contract or provides one or more Key Personnel. “JV Team member” is defined as one of the entities that make up a joint venture (JV) formed for the purpose of responding to this solicitation.

Questions: Offerors may submit questions requesting clarification of solicitation requirements by emailing the contract specialist at neil.flint@navy.mil. It is required that all questions be received within 10 calendar days of the date this solicitation is issued.

2.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT

Offerors are free to submit proposals via written format or on a CD-ROM.

Written proposals must be formatted using a Times New Roman 12 pt Normal font (no reduction permitted), single-spaced with 1-inch margins all around, and formatted for standard 8.5 x 11-inch paper. All pages should be numbered with section and page numbers. When foldout pages are used they must not exceed 11 x 17 inches and will be counted as 1 page. Drawings may be provided separately and may be any size but should be folded to approximately 8.5 x 11-inch standard size and will count as 1 page. Graphs and tables shall be presented in no smaller than a 10 pt font and should contain a grid, which allows values to be read directly from the graph. Graphic resolution, including such data as tables or charts, should be consistent with the purpose of the data presented.

If the Offeror chooses to provide their proposal on a CD-ROM, it must be submitted as electronic files fully compatible with Microsoft (MS) Office 2010 applications. For information not supported by MS Office products, use the latest Adobe Acrobat Reader. The Offeror will ensure that the Price Volume is provided on a separate CD-ROM. Each CD-ROM is to be labeled for content and the Offeror’s name and marked as UNCLASSIFIED. If a discrepancy exists between the original paper copy of the proposal and the disk copy, the paper copy will take precedence.

3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES

The Offeror must present proposal information in a manner that facilitates a one-to-one comparison between the information presented and this Proposal Instruction. Proposal information must be structured such that its Volume/paragraph number matches the Proposal Instructions Volume/paragraph number provided in section “Part B Specific Instructions” to which it is responding, although the Offeror may add lower tier subparagraphs. The Offeror must provide reasons it will not provide information for a particular paragraph. The proposal information instructions are structured by paragraph numbers where first, second, third, and fourth parts correspond to the volume, section, and element, etc., in the Offeror’s proposal.

Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted as one original and additional copies as specified in the table below. The table below supersedes the copies requested in Block 9 of the Standard Form (SF) 33. All volumes of the original proposal shall be delivered to the address provided in Section 4.0 prior to the closing date/time stated in this solicitation. Page limitations for each volume, if any, are also specified in the table below; title and table of contents pages do not count towards the page limit. Any pages submitted exceeding the page limit shall be disregarded and NOT evaluated.

Information submitted as an Annex to the proposal includes manuals, specifications, plans, procedures, and policies that exist as an official document of the company or facility, as well as other information requested in Part B Specific Instructions. Page limitations for Annexes, if any, are specified below. The authorized Annexes are summarized in the table below.

Each volume shall contain the following information:

The Offeror shall submit a Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) for the Technical Volume, similar to the example below, to help ensure that all solicitation requirements are addressed and to facilitate the evaluators’ review of the Offeror’s proposal. The CRM should be a single integrated matrix and cross-reference the proposal volume and paragraphs to specific RFP requirements, as well as other parts of the proposal that contain relevant information. The Offeror’s CRM may be identical to the example below or revised such as to add columns to indicate the page number on which information may be found, identify where other relevant information in the proposal is located, or provide other comments. The CRM does not count against any of the proposal page limitations.

EXAMPLE OF A CROSS REFERENCE MATRIX (CRM)

Volume 1 Technical Example: Para 3.1 Note: This column shall address all paragraphs in Sections xx and xy of the SOW/PWS.

Volume 1 Technical

Volume 1 Technical

4.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION:

Clearly mark all packages with the solicitation number. The submission date for all Volumes shall be no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 of the SF 33 of the RFP.

The Offeror shall submit proposals via United States Postal Service or through a commercial carrier using the address provided below. Offeror shall not submit proposals by facsimile or electronically via email.

Hand carried proposals may be delivered to the address below:

Commander NAWCWD (Code 254430D) Attn: Neil Flint - N68936-19-R-0011 1 Admin Circle., BLDG 2334, Mail Stop 1303 China Lake, CA 93555-6108

5.0 PROPOSAL PACKAGING:

The Offeror shall package the proposal volumes in cartons or equivalent packaging containers in the most efficient manner possible grouping like volumes to the maximum extent possible. Each container shall be single person portable. One container shall include all Original Proposal volumes including the original/signed documents submitted as part of Volume 3 Price.

Each box should include a packing slip detailing the contents to include the volume number, title, and copy number. Also, each box should be stamped or marked “For Official Use Only” and “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

6.0 CLASSIFIED DATA

All proposals must be UNCLASSIFIED.

7.0 SOLICITATION CHANGES

For notice of any changes and additional information provided by the Government for the solicitation, please go to www.FedBizOpps.gov.

PART B SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

Note: Pricing information shall only appear in the Price volume.

1. VOLUME 1: TECHNICAL

The Offeror shall provide all information and data required to conduct a thorough and complete technical evaluation. The Offeror shall address the following within the proposal:

1.1 Technical Requirements

1.2 Quality Assurance Requirements

1.3 Experience requirements

1.1 Technical Requirements. Describe the planned technical approach for fulfilling the Government’s technical requirements in Section 2.0 of the SOW, to include all drawings. Additionally, if the offeror is requesting a waiver of the First Article Testing requirement in accordance with FAR clause 52.209-4, the offeror shall submit documentation supporting the request in accordance with NAVAIR clause 5252.209-9502.

1.2 Quality Assurance. Describe the planned approach to satisfy the Quality Assurance (QA) requirements within the specifications and SOW including internal QA processes. If the Offeror proposes an equivalent Quality System Model in accordance with FAR Clause 52.246-11, the Offeror shall provide detailed information on the system, including how it is comparable to the AS9100D with ISO 9001:2015. The QA program shall address material and parts selection, process control, workmanship, inspection and configuration management. Offeror shall describe how the proposed quality system will control the quality of the program in the design, qualification and production phases. The QA program shall address material and parts selection, process control, workmanship, inspection and configuration management.

1.3 Experience. Provide narrative that describes the Offeror’s experience with fabricating and producing mechanical assemblies similar in complexity to the GMLTS to include addressing items 1.3.1 through 1.3.2 below. (The offeror may also utilize tables to supplement narrative as shown in the example below).

1.3.1 Production of metal work using Computer Numerical Control (CNC) milling and turning, sheet metal fabrication, welding, painting, dip brazing, chem-film coatings and anodizing techniques.

1.3.2 Specifically describe previous units produced and when they were delivered to the Government. Provide examples of experience demonstrating the similarity of the effort in terms of fabrication and production technologies that will be utilized to fulfill the requirements of this contract as well as the Offeror’s ability to sustain production to ensure on-time delivery.

Example Table: Previous Experience with SOW Requirements and Similar Items

2.0 VOLUME: PAST PERFORMANCE

Sources of past performance evaluation information include information provided by the Offeror in response to the solicitation, information obtained from questionnaires, and any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information Systems, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System, or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

The Offeror shall complete the Past Performance Information Form Attachment P2 for each past performance reference performed within five years of the solicitation release date unless the Offeror has previously performed the exact GMLTS mechanical assemblies in the past and the deliveries were accepted by NAWCWD Point Mugu, the Offeror can provide those past performance without time limit. The Offeror shall submit no more than five Past Performance Information Forms as the Prime Contractor, no more than two forms for each principal subcontractor, and/or no more than two forms for each JV team member. The Offeror shall submit written consent from its principal subcontractor(s) and JV team member(s) that will allow the Government to coordinate any past performance issues directly with the Offeror. If the Offeror does not submit the written consent, the Government will address any past performance issues directly with the principal subcontractor or JV Team member and the Offeror will forfeit the opportunity to participate in any related discussions. Consequently, for any principal subcontractor and JV team member that does not provide the written consent, the Offeror shall provide the name, address, phone number, and email address with whom the Government may address any past performance issues.

The Offeror shall provide a narrative on each Past Performance Information form in the “Contract Effort Description” area that clearly describes how each contract reference has relevant work effort that matches the relevancy definitions specified in Section M of the solicitation.

The primary source of past performance information will be PPIRS. If a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) exists for multiple years for the same contract/order, all periods of performance within the recency period specified above, for that contract/order, will be used for evaluation.

3.0 VOLUME 3: PRICE PROPOSAL

3.1 Volume Content

(a) This Volume shall contain the Contract Compliance information specified below as follows:

i. Offeror Summary Table: The Offeror shall complete the table below. The Offeror shall include all subcontractors and JV team members who will be involved with the performance of the contract and list all sites where the work will be performed. If a JV teaming or subcontracting arrangement is proposed, identify the work share, distribution elements, and ratios that each contractor will perform using the table below. Also provide a definition of the legal relationship between the entities if it is other than a Prime/subcontractor relationship.

Contractor Name (Indicate Prime, JV Team Member, or Sub)

(b) This Volume shall also contain a copy of Section B with the Contract Line Item (CLIN) and Unit Prices and, for evaluation purposes, the Total Prices filled in using the quantities value in the solicitation and the instructions below. Section B prices shall be provided separately in one digital data copy in MS Office 2010 Excel or Word format on CD-ROM media. Within all Excel spreadsheets, the Offeror shall use formulas and functions to the maximum extent possible and avoid using output type “value only” cells. If links are utilized, supply those referenced files. Spreadsheets shall not be protected.

(c) All price and price supporting information shall be contained in Section B and the price proposal. No price or pricing information shall be included in any other technical volume including cover letters. Offerors are responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate their price proposal.

3.2 Ground Rules and Assumptions:

(a) As this is a competitive acquisition with adequate price competition anticipated, certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-1 is not required. However, in the event that adequate price competition does not exist after receipt of proposals, the Government reserves the right to request additional cost or pricing data as necessary from both the Offeror and subcontractors. Further, the Offeror may be required to provide a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data prior to award, pursuant to FAR 15.406-2.

(b) The Offeror shall provide sufficient information to support its price as well as an explanation of all ground rules and assumptions that affect the price estimates.

3.3 Price Information:

The Offeror shall identify the proposed price for each CLIN as specified in Section B of this solicitation. For CLINS 0002 and 0004 the offeror shall complete the step-ladder pricing as outlined in the CLIN extended description. The unit price for quantity 2-4 in Year 3 shall be utilized to calculate the total maximum price for CLINs 0002 & 0004. The Offeror shall sum up the proposed Total Prices by CLIN, and provide a total overall price of the proposal using provided quantities, and submit a complete Section B.

If the Offeror is requesting a waiver of the First Article First Article Testing requirement in accordance with FAR clause 52.209-4, the Offeror shall submit two completed versions of Section B:

1. A completed version of Section B under the assumption the Government will waive the First Article Testing requirement, in which case CLINs 0001 and 0003 will not be required or ordered and, therefore, should not be proposed by the Offeror.

2. A completed version of Section B under the assumption the Government will NOT waive the First Article Testing requirement, in which case CLINs 0001 and 0003 WILL be required and ordered and, therefore, should be proposed by the Offeror.

For Offerors receiving a waiver of the First Artice Testing requirement in accordance with FAR clause 52.209-4, the total overall price will be the sum of the proposed Total Prices for CLINs 0002 & 0004.

For Offerors NOT receiving a waiver of the First Artice Testing requirement in accordance with FAR clause 52.209-4, the total overall price will be the sum of the proposed Total Prices for CLINs 0001 – 0004.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M - (1) EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (5/15/2019)

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

The Government expects to select one Offeror whose proposal offers the “best value” to the Government using the Low Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) method. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit(s) in response to the requirement. The Offeror is advised that the Offeror proposing the lowest price and meeting the acceptability standards specified in the solicitation for non-price factors will be selected for award, if otherwise eligible for award.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

In accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the Low Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) proposal after evaluation, in accordance with the solicitation. All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. Failure to address each of the areas identified in Section L Part B Specific Information in the proposal may impact the resulting evaluation ratings.

Technical tradeoffs will not be made and additional consideration will not be given for exceeding acceptability. Proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability or unacceptability only and will not be ranked.

If deemed appropriate by the Government, proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors. In addition, the Offeror’s technical proposal will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the price proposal and reflects a clear understanding of the scope of work necessary to meet the solicitation requirements.

A Technical rating will be assigned. This method reflects whether the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements and whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being acceptable. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an “Unacceptable” Technical Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate recent performance to determine how well an Offeror has performed work similar to the work required by the solicitation. When proposals are received from joint ventures, specifically formed by the Offeror to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual JV team member’s relevant past performance. After evaluating the Offeror’s past performance information, a Past Performance Evaluation Rating will be assigned. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Performance Evaluation Rating than past performance of lesser relevance.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The total evaluated price will be the deciding factor among the technically acceptable proposals. To be technically acceptable, both technical and past performance will be evaluated to determine if the proposal meets the minimum requirements as defined within the solicitation.

Each offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based on the following factors:

· Technical (which includes Past Performance)

· Price

Factors are listed in descending order of importance. If an offeror is not technically acceptable then price will not be considered.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the Offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements. The evaluation will also include an assessment of the following:

1.1. Technical Requirements - The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical requirements based on the information provided as required by Section L of this solicitation and the Offeror’s capability to meet specifications and contract technical requirements within Sections 2.1, 2.1.1, 3, 3.1, 3.2 of the SOW.

1.2. Quality Assurance Requirements - The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Quality Assurance based on the information provided as required by Section L of this solicitation and Section 3.1 of the SOW.

1.3. Experience Requirements - The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s experience based on the information provided as required by Section L of this solicitation and the information provided within the SOW to include drawings and specifications.

2: PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY CRITERIA

There are three aspects to past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Past performance reference will be considered recent if the contract/order has been performed within five years of the solicitation release date unless the Offeror has previously performed the exact GMLTS mechanical assemblies in the past and the deliveries were accepted by NAWCWD Point Mugu, the Offeror can provide those past performance reference without time limit. Past Performance reference that does not meet the above requirements will not be considered in the evaluation.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate how relevant the Past Performance being evaluated is to the requirements of the solicitation. The Government will use the following aspects to determine relevancy for this evaluation:

Scope:

Section L, Part B, Experience 1.1.2 Specifically describe previous units produced and when they were delivered to the Government. Provide examples of experience demonstrating the similarity of the effort in terms of fabrication and production technologies that will be utilized to fulfill the requirements of this contract as well as the Offeror’s ability to sustain production to ensure on-time delivery.

Magnitude:

The third aspect is to evaluate the overall quality of the Offeror’s team regarding recent, relevant, past performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror, principal subcontractors, and Joint Venture team member’s performance and focus its evaluation on the following areas: 1) meeting technical requirements 2) meeting schedule requirements, e.g., on time or late delivery; 3) controlling contract cost; 4) managing the contracted effort; 5) utilization of small business; 6) regulatory compliance, and 7) the demonstrated systemic improvement actions taken to resolve past problems.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and (if applicable) its principal subcontractors’ and critical team members’ past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort is to this instant effort. Relevancy is based on recent contracts whose performance is within five years of this proposal submission and are of similar effort in terms of scope, complexity, magnitude (dollar value), and degree of subcontracting/teaming to this solicitation. The Offeror who has previously performed the exact GMLTS mechanical assemblies in the past regardless of the time frame, the effort will be considered exact relevant.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on 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. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

The Government will utilize the information submitted by the Offeror, other databases including the Contractor Performance Rating System (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), etc. and other past performance information readily available to the Government.

3.0 PRICE

Each Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to determine whether it is complete, reasonable, and whether it contains balanced unit pricing. In its evaluation, the Government will perform a price analysis to assess if the Offeror’s proposed price is fair and reasonable. The Government may use various price analysis techniques such as comparison of the Offeror’s proposed price to competing Offerors’ prices in response to this solicitation, comparison to historical pricing for same or similar DoD contracts, comparison to the Government’s independent price estimate, comparison to commercial and/or industry standards, among other techniques to perform the price analysis. The total evaluated price will be the sum of the Total Prices of all CLINs (subject to the paragraph below).

Price evaluation for First Article units (CLINS 0001and 0003) shall be conducted on the basis of First Article Required or on the basis of First Article Waived, depending on whether the offeror is required to test and deliver a first article or whether the requirement is waived by the Government and price is excluded from evaluation in accordance with NAVAIR Clause 5252.209-9502 of this solicitation.

Overall Summary Level for all CLINs

Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the Government to determine reasonableness. If, after receipt of a proposal, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the Offeror may be required to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-4.

Prospective Offerors are forewarned that if there are discrepancies between Section B and Volume 3 Narrative, Section B prevails.

PART C: EVALUATION RATING AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

1.0 EVALUATION RATING AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

The definitions below will be used by the Government when assessing solicitation compliance and the expected results of the Offeror's proposed approach. The Government will utilize a combined technical/risk rating for this effort.

2.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings: The combined technical/risk assignments are provided in the table below:

Technical Evaluation Ratings

3.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

Relevancy Rating: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and (if applicable) its principal subcontractors’ and critical team members’ past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort is to this effort. Relevancy is based on recent contracts whose performance is within three years of this proposal submission and are of similar effort in terms of scope, complexity, dollar value, and degree of subcontracting/teaming to this solicitation.

Relevancy ratings shall utilize the evaluation table below:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Evaluation Rating: Evaluation Ratings assignment reflect the Government’s reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the quality of the Offeror’s past performance in delivering quality products and services and in meeting technical, price, and schedule requirements on products deemed relevant to the solicitation requirements. Problems not addressed by the Offeror will be considered to still exist. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied continuous systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems.

Evaluation ratings shall utilize the evaluation table below.

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on 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. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

The Government will utilize the information submitted by the Offeror, other databases including the Contractor Performance Rating System (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), etc. and other past performance information readily available to the Government.

4.0 OTHER DEFINITIONS

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.

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) image1.wmf