21Q0029 Amendment 2.docx

N6893621Q0029

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been modified:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q.1. The first two material items listed are called out as aluminum angle. Is there a aluminum grade and temper assigned to these two items? The final two items are called out as square tube and angle. Is there a material type / grade assigned to these two items?

A.1. All 4 items are 6061-T6.

Q.2. In the evaluation section one of the criteria is total price for CLIN 0001. Since the entire contract performance would be included on CLIN 0001, how can my bid be evaluated on this? Should this evaluation criteria actually be based on the price of the initial order, as this is all that I have the information to bid on? I didn't see any information in the RFP which would allow me to submit a realistic price for the whole of CLIN 0001.

A.2. As shown in the Addendum to FAR Clause 52.216-22 the Ceiling for CLIN 0001 has already been established as $3,358,860. Therefore in accordance with Section L, the Government anticipates awarding four contracts to the Offerors that represent the lowest price technically acceptable based off of the technical volume and initial order submitted.

Q.3. In Section M, Part B, 5.0 & 6.0 reference taking the individual year 5 price and dividing by 2 in order to get the 6-month option price. Since we aren't proposing on a year-by-year basis, how will the price for the 6-month option be evaluated?

A.3. As stated above in question #2, the max ceiling has already been set by the Government. Therefore, the 6-month extension (in accordance with FAR 52.217-8 & FAR 52.217-5) has been removed from the solicitation.

Q.4. The solicitation makes reference to multiple time periods as being necessary for the bid validity date. I see 30 days and 90 days referenced. Which is the requirement? For example, Section L, Clause 52.212-1, (c) says 30 days vs. addendum to 52.212-1 Part B 3.1(a)(iii) says 90 days. Which length does the government wish us to hold our quotes valid for?

A.4. Please follow the Addendums for Section L & M. Addendum to 52.212-1, 3.0 Volvume 3 Price/Cost states 90 days after quotation submission.

Q.5. For the Investigative Requirements section: Is this only in relation to delivery onsite and to those individuals handling government information, or for the contractor's entire staff who will be working on this effort?

A.5. Section C Statement of Work Investigative Requirements is for any contractor personnel who is requesting unescorted access to Navy installations. This is in relation to onsite delivery.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been deleted:

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

52.212-2 EVALUATION -- COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

_______________Technical____________________________ _______________Past Performance____________________________ _______________Price/Cost____________________________

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

*SEE ADDEMDUM TO 52.212-2*

M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (COMMERCIAL SUPPLIES) (01 Jan 2021)

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

The Government is contemplating on selecting four Offerors whose quotation offers the ‘best value” to the Government using the lowest price technically acceptable 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 Offerors quoting 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 is contemplating award of four contracts and initial orders resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offerors whose quotation represents the Low Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) quotation after evaluation, in accordance with the solicitation. All quotations 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 quotation may impact the resulting evaluation ratings.

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

If deemed appropriate by the Government, quotation information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors. In addition, the Offeror’s technical quotation will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the price quotation 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 quotation meets or does not meet the minimum requirements and whether the Offeror’s quotation rises to a level of being acceptable. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an “Unacceptable” Technical Rating will result in the entire quotation being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate recent performance to determine the overall quality an Offeror has performed in work similar to the work required by the solicitation. When quotations 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.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

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

· Technical

· Past Performance

· Price

To be considered awardable, the Offeror must be rated acceptable in both the Technical and Past Performance factors. If an offeror is not rated acceptable in both the Technical and Past Performance factors, price will not be considered. Additionally, in order to be considered awardable, the apparent Successful Offeror may, at the discretion of the Contracting Officer, be required to pass a formal DCMA Pre-Award Survey (PAS).

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s quotation to determine the Offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical quotation 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 offerors quote to determine if the offeror meets the specifications stated in Section C of the Request for Quote/Solicitation, including the ability to meet requirements as found in Section C, Statement of Work, Part 3.3. To be considered acceptable, the Offeror must demonstrate experience in all areas listed in Section L 1.1 Technical Requirements.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

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

The first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance being evaluated. Past performance will be considered recent if the contract/order has been performed within three years of the solicitation release date. Past Performance that is not recent 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 this solicitation. The Government will use the following aspects to determine relevancy for this evaluation:

Scope:

Section L, Part B, 1.1, SOW 3.3.

Manufacturing Manufacturing, procuring, and delivering same or similar product line(s), preparatory proccesses, commonly stocked materials and specialty metals.

Section L, Part B, 1.1, SOW 3.3.

Quality Assurance Passing inspections and certifications, providing applicable inspection data and certifications, traceability to National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Section L, Part B, 1.1, SOW 3.3.

Responsiveness Providing estimates within the required time constraints

Section L, Part B, 1.1, SOW 3.3.

Packing, Shipping, and Delivery Schedule Timely delivery/ shipping and preservation of critical/ subject material before or by the required delivery dates.

Section L, Part B, 1.1, SOW 3.3.

Contractor Quotes Quoting orders using unit pricing, total order pricing (including shipping), proposed delivery dates, origin of proposed materials.

$1,000,000.00 (sub) over a 3 year period.

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the overall quality of the Offeror’s recent relevant, past performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror and focus its evaluation on the following areas:

1) meeting technical requirements, i.e., the quality of technical performance;

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.

To be considered acceptable in overall quality of the Offeror’s team regarding recent and relevant past performance, a minimum of Satisfactory performance must be met in the most recent CPARS or CPAQ references.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine whether a recent effort is relevant to this instant effort. Relevancy is based on recent contracts whose performance is within three years of this quotation submission and are of similar effort in terms of scope, complexity, and magnitude (dollar value).

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/COST

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Price Volume for its proposed total price; price reasonableness; whether the offeror’s quoted CLIN prices are balanced; and whether the offeror completed the information requested in Section L.

Price Reasonableness: Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. It is expected that the award decision will include a determination that there is adequate price competition and that the proposed prices are reasonable. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the Government to determine reasonableness. If, after receipt of a quotation, the Procuring 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 requested to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR § 15.403-4.

Unbalanced Pricing: As required by FAR § 15.404-1(g)(2), the Government may determine that a quotation is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. 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 quotation may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. This is not a price realism analysis.

4.0 Overall Summary Level for all CLINs

The contractor’s compliance to FAR Clauses 52.219-14 “Limitation on Subcontracting,” 52.219-27 “Notice of Total Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Business Set Aside,” 52.219-29 “Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole Source Award to, Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business Concerns,” 52.219-30 “Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole Source Award to, Women-Owned Small Business Concerns,” or 52.219-3 “Notice of Total HUBZone Set Aside or Sole Source Award,” as applicable, will be assessed as an element of responsibility. An Offeror’s quotation that fails to meet the limitation on subcontracting during each period of performance shall not be considered for award.

Prospective Offerors are forewarned that if there are discrepancies between the Sample Order Price Quotation Sheet, and Volume 3 Narrative, the Sample Order Price Quotation Sheet prevails.

5.0 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, is incorporated in the solicitation. Total evaluated cost/price will also include the six month performance period permitted under the clause, to account for a situation where invoking of the clause, in whole or part, becomes necessary. Specifically, the evaluated cost/price of this six-month period will be calculated by dividing the Year 5 Pricing by 2 to establish the estimated cost for the six-month option to extend services.

6.0 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE:

The total evaluated price will be the sum of the CLINs. plus the sum of a six month extension in accordance with FAR 52.217-8.

PART C: EVALUATION RATING

1.0 EVALUATION RATING 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 technical rating for this effort.

1.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

Technical Ratings: The technical 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 quotation 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 (see FAR 15.305)(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

The following have been deleted:

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf