21R0006 Amendment.docx

N6893621R0006

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 20-Jan-2021 03:00 PM to 27-Jan-2021 03:00 PM.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

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

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

The Government expects to select up to three Offerors whose proposal offers the “best value” to the Government, using the trade-off 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 lowest priced proposal meeting the solicitation requirements may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional price.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

For the Technical factor, a Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be assigned. The Technical Rating reflects whether the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements along with an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. For proposals containing no deficiencies, the benefit to the Government associated with assigned strengths will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional. The Technical Risk Rating considers the risk associated with the technical proposal in meeting the requirement and is evaluated by the identification of weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses. Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an “Unacceptable” Technical Rating or a “High” Technical Risk 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 Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating than past performance of lesser relevance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, the Offeror will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” which is considered a “Neutral” rating.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals will be evaluated using the factors (and any subfactors), listed below.

3.1 TECHNICAL

The Technical Proposal will be evaluated using the subfactors listed below.

1. Management Approach and Mission Accomplishment Capability

1. Technical Approach and Capability

1. Rapid Response time

1. Experience

1. Certified Welding

1. Crane Services

1. Program Logic Control (PLC) and building Human Machine Interfaces (HMIs)

3.2 PAST PERFORMANCE

3.3 PRICE/COST

Factors are approximately equal to each other regarding importance.

All evaluation factors other than price/cost, when combined, are significantly more important than price/cost.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL

The evaluation will include an assessment of the following:

Proposals will be evaluated using the factors listed below.

1. Management Approach and Mission Accomplishment Capability: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Management Approach and the Offeror’s Mission Accomplishment Capability based on the proposal to this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the clarity, completeness, soundness, and realism of the information, and the extent to which the proposed processes and procedures ensure successful accomplishment of the tasks described in the Statement of Work.

2. Technical Approach and Capability: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Approach and Capability based on the information required by this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the information to determine: the thoroughness of the understanding of the technical aspects of the each Statement of Work section, the viability of the technical approach to activities required for each of the Statement of Work sections, and the level of prior relevant tasking of the Statement of Work sections.

3. Rapid Response time: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to be readily accessible providing a rapid response time within 24hrs.

4. Experience: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal for prior experience in the following areas:

6. Minimum of 5 (five) years of overall experience

6. Experience with mining operations

6. Industrial Maintenance experience related to mining operations

6. Industrial Maintenance experience related to military operations

5. Certified Welding The Government will evaluate the offeror to ensure (by certificate or acknowledgment) that they possess each of the following certifications as listed in 3.3 of the SOW:

a. ASME B31.1 Power Piping

b. AMSE B31.3 Process Piping

c. AMSE B31.5 Refrigeration Piping and Heat Transfer Components

b. Tungsten inert Gas (TIG)

c. Metal Inert Gas (MIG)

d. ARC

6. Crane Services

a. Contractor must demonstrate that crane operation certification or training meets OSHA rules.

7. Program Logic Control (PLC) and building Human Machine Interfaces (HMIs): The Government will evaluate the offeror on their stated abilities to understand and use PLC as well as to build HMIs.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government reserves the right to use information currently on file in addition to any references provided. The Government may use information other than that provided by the offeror in their proposals to evaluate past performance, including information obtained from sources other than those identified by the offeror. The Past Performance Information Reporting System (PPIRS) will be the primary method used to evaluate Past Performance.

3.0 PRICE/COST

Firm Fixed Price CLINs:

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 a 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 Base Period CLINs.

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 PCO 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.

The contractor’s compliance to FAR Clauses 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 proposal that fails to meet the limitation on subcontracting during each period of performance shall not be considered for award.

PART C: 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.

1.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

Technical Ratings: The technical rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

Technical Ratings

2.0 TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Technical Risk Ratings: The risk rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance associated with the Offeror’s technical approach.

3.0 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 appropriate adjectival rating will be assigned to each factor and subfactor, as required. The Government will utilize a combined technical/risk rating for this effort.

4.0 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

The Government will employ the Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method described in the table below. In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent 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 or neutral past performance. In the context of acceptable/unacceptable, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating: Performance Confidence Assessment rating assignments reflect the Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance record.

5.0 OTHER DEFINITIONS

Strengths: 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.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (FAR15.001)

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (FAR 15.001)

Deficiency: a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. (FAR 15.001)

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.

Risk: as it pertains to source selection, 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 or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf