1.17 Section L M - RATT 6-12.docx

Section L - Instructions, Conditions & Notices

General Instructions: This solicitation is issued as a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) set-aside under Seaport NxG using Fair Opportunity under Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) 16.507. Only offers received from eligible Seaport NxG task order holders will be eligible for award and the award resulting from this solicitation will only be made to concerns eligible under the SDVOSB Program in accordance with FAR 52.219-27.

The Government contemplates award of a single SeaPort NxG task order with a combination of Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) and Cost-Reimbursement (cost only) CLINs. The resultant task order is for support services in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) provided herein.

The anticipated task order award under this solicitation will be made in accordance with RFO Part 16.507, “Additional ordering procedures for multiple-award contracts”, following the policies and procedures for solicitation, evaluation, and award.

The Source Selection process for this task order will be based on a Tradeoff source selection process with the award being made to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government.

The period of performance will consist of a one-year base period followed by four one-year option periods. All of the option periods, including the 6-month extension under FAR clause 52.217-8, will be evaluated during the source selection process.

Questions regarding any aspect of this procurement must be submitted in writing via email only and addressed to christine.jordan@navy.mil. The subject line of all email correspondence should state: RFP N00244-26-R-3108 QUESTIONS in the subject line. All questions should be submitted no later than 10 business days prior to solicitation closing date.

Any exception to the Government’s technical requirements/specifications and/or terms and conditions of this RFP, must be resolved prior to the solicitation closing date. Offerors that take exception to the Government’s technical requirements, terms and conditions, omit any required information, or propose additional terms or conditions, without prior resolution with the Contracting Officer, may be eliminated from consideration. Alternate proposals are not authorized and will be rejected.

The Government intends to award a task order without exchanges. Notwithstanding this intent, the Government reserves the right, at its discretion, to request and require revised proposals from any or all offerors in accordance with RFO 16.507. The Government also reserves the right to change any of the terms and conditions in the RFP by an amendment at any time prior to award and to allow offerors to revise their proposals accordingly.

The Government reserves the right to reject all proposals received in response to a solicitation, if doing so is in the best interest of the Government.

Each Offeror’s proposal is presumed to represent the Offeror’s best efforts to comply with the solicitation requirements and provide the best price. The Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price standpoint. Clarity and completeness of the proposal are of the utmost importance. The proposal must be written in a practical, clear, and concise manner. It must use quantitative terms whenever possible and must avoid qualitative adjectives to the maximum extent possible. The proposal shall be complete as submitted, and not include references to data or information previously submitted. Data previously submitted to the Navy, if any, will not be incorporated “by reference” into the offer and will not be considered in the evaluation of the proposal.

The proposal must demonstrate the Offeror’s familiarity with the detailed aspects of the requirements, and clearly show that the Offeror understands all of the requirements. Offerors are cautioned against restating the PWS in their proposal, particularly with regards to the Factor I: Technical; and must state how all solicitation and PWS requirements will be met. Statements such as "the Offeror understands", and "the Offeror shall/can comply", along with responses that paraphrase the solicitation, are inadequate. The use of phrases such as "standard practices" (with a specific Government reference or industry reference) does not reflect the Offeror’s understanding of requirements and will likely result in an “Unacceptable” evaluation rating.

Proposals must be sufficiently detailed to allow the Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) to make a thorough evaluation of the proposal and arrive at a determination about the extent to which the offeror will be able to provide quality performance in accordance with the PWS.

Proposal Format and Content: Offerors shall submit their proposals in the following format:

Volume I- Signed Offer - Seaport NxG Solicitation Volume II – Technical Proposal Volume III – Past Performance Volume IV – Price

**Volume II must not contain any price or cost information

**Page limits do not include cover page or table of contents. However, these pages shall not include any material information that needs to be evaluated under the evaluation factors.

All offers must be submitted via the PIEE Solicitation Module.

The proposal should be single-spaced typed (one side only) using Microsoft Word minimum 12-point Font text, Times New Roman preferred. Graphs/tables/charts may be included as necessary and maybe in 10-point font text. Hyperlinks may not be used.

All pages in each volume shall be numbered sequentially (i.e., 1-20); pages identified above that are not included in the page limitation should be numbered differently or not at all. The Government will only evaluate that part of the proposal that complies with the instructions set forth herein. For example, if the requirement is a maximum of 20 pages and an offeror submits 22 pages, the last two pages will not be read and/or evaluated.

Specific Volume Instructions:

Volume I – Proposal

Volume I consists of the offer. The offer must include a complete copy of the Solicitation. This volume shall be completely filled in and signed by the offeror. Contractors are required to provide an offer based on the most up to date information provided by the Government.

The proposal shall include a cover letter from the Offeror and each subcontractor. The following information shall be included in the cover letter:

a. The company name, address, point of contact with telephone numbers, e-mail address, Contractor and Government Entity (CAGE) code, Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) number; and Seaport NxG contract number.

b. Names, titles, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of persons authorized to negotiate and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal (Not required for the Subcontractor) on the Offeror's behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation;

c. Proposal validity for 120 days;

The proposal shall also include:

a. Completed Representations and Certifications of solicitation provisions or certification of completion within the offerors System of Award Management (SAM) profile; and

b. Evidence of VETS 4212 compliance, and

c. The offeror must submit the draft DD254 as part of their proposal. The offeror shall demonstrate that it either currently possesses a required Facility Security Clearance in accordance with the draft DD-254, or evidence that they are willing and eligible to obtain the required FCL security clearance, and

d. if applicable, an OCI mitigation plan Included in Volume I

The Offeror must state explicitly whether or not any exceptions are taken to the terms and conditions of the solicitation. If so, the Offeror shall list and provide its rationale for any such exception. Any comments or exceptions must be addressed in this section and may form the basis for an Offeror to be considered ineligible for award. Alternate proposals are not authorized and will be rejected.

OCI Mitigation Plan (if applicable) In accordance with FAR 9.5, Offerors shall disclose all known potential or actual OCIs involving the Offeror's organization and any proposed Team Members (e.g., subcontractors or consultants).

a) Offeror shall disclose, for instance, any conflicting roles potentially created by the Offeror's current or past involvement (within the past three (3) calendar years) with a CNSP contract or agreement, either as a prime or sub, and identify any contract/agreement requirements that might bias the Offeror's judgment or provide the Offeror with an unfair competitive advantage in future CNSP solicitations.

b) Offeror shall submit a written OCI mitigation plan for all disclosed OCI(s), including identifying and describing the OCI(s), the action the Offeror has taken or proposes to take to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate the OCI(s) disclosed under subparagraph (a) in the context of each of the OCI limitations outlined in FAR 9.505-1 through FAR 9.505-4. The Government may require the Offeror to provide additional information to assist the Government in evaluating the Offeror's OCI mitigation plan.

c) If the Government determines that the Offeror failed to disclose an OCI fully or failed to reasonably provide additional information requested by the Government to assist in evaluating the Offeror's OCI mitigation plan, the Government may reject the proposal and withdraw it from consideration for award.

Volume II – Technical

The purpose of this section is to enable the Navy to assess the Offeror's technical understanding of and capability to perform, manage, and control tasks in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

The Technical Proposal shall consist of no more than 20 pages, excluding resumes, letters of intent, employment agreements, title page, table of contents, and cross-reference index list. Offerors are cautioned that no more than the first 20 pages of their Technical Proposals will be evaluated. If any offer is not in compliance with the page limitation on Technical Proposals the extra pages will be removed and not evaluated. There shall be no price/cost information included in the Technical sections of the offer.

Factor I - Technical will consist of three (3) sub-factors:

Sub-factor 1: Technical Approach Sub-factor 2: Management Plan Sub-factor 3: Staffing

Clarity and completeness of the proposal are of the utmost importance. The proposal must be written in a practical, clear, and concise manner. It must use quantitative terms whenever possible and must avoid qualitative adjectives to the maximum extent possible. Offerors are cautioned against restating PWS requirements in their proposal, particularly with regard to technical requirements; and must state how all RFP and PWS requirements will be met. Statements such as "the offeror understands" and "the offeror shall/can comply", along with reference or industry references does not reflect that the offeror understands the requirements and will likely result in a diminished evaluation rating.

Sub-factor (1) – Technical Approach

The Offeror shall provide, in detail, an approach that will demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding, methodology, and ability to perform all tasks listed in the PWS. The technical approach shall demonstrate that the Offeror can accomplish the specified work in a technically competent and timely manner with minimal risk to the Government. Offerors must address understanding of the deliverables to be produced in response to the requirements.

Offeror must provide evidence and details of knowledge in supporting the various tasks identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The approach must specifically address the offeror’s methodology for:

· Fleet Engagement and Assessment: The approach for planning, scheduling, coordinating, and executing RATT ship visits and Organic Repair Capability Assessments (ORCA), ensuring a consistent and high-quality assessment process across multiple platforms and homeports as described in PWS sections 4.1, 4.3 through 4.8, 4.10, 4.11, and 4.31.

· Mentorship and Knowledge Transfer: The methodology for providing effective, expert-level mentorship and on-the-job training to senior shipboard personnel (Officers and senior enlisted). The approach shall detail OJT to Ship’s Force personnel to include senior Officers and enlisted. how the Offeror's personnel will establish credibility and transfer knowledge to improve ship's force proficiency in operational and maintenance tasks.

· Root Cause Analysis and Reporting: The approach for identifying, analyzing, and documenting systemic deficiencies in a ship’s material condition, maintenance practices, and operational procedures. This shall include the methodology for generating technically sound draft Automatic Work Requests (AWRs), detailed trip reports, and actionable recommendations for corrective action as described in PWS sections 4.2, 4.21 through 4.24, 4.33, 4.34, 4.36, and 5.0.

· Stakeholder Communication and Liaison: The plan for managing communications and maintaining a close relationship with Government stakeholders, including TYCOM staff, ISICs, Afloat Training Group (ATG), and individual ship leadership to de-conflict schedules, report findings, and provide feedback to support the Government's validation of training effectiveness.

Sub-factor (2) - Management Plan

Offerors must address their methodology for managing the technical requirements identified in the PWS; management approach and task order administration including status reporting; the reporting chain of command, lines of authority, responsibilities designed to accomplish the proposed work effort, and methods for quality control and overall supervision.

Offerors shall provide a transition plan with a detailed description of their transition process, explaining how they will assume responsibility from the incumbent while mitigating performance risk. Offerors shall address their approach to transition-in and timeline to begin full performance of the task order. The plan must specifically address the offeror’s methodology for:

· Onboarding and integrating personnel

· Assuming control of the master RATT scheduling and coordination functions to ensure no disruption to planned ship visits during the transition period.

Offerors must include a generic organizational chart which clearly depicts how the site will be staffed. The organizational chart must be accompanied by an explanation of the functional relationships and responsibilities, focusing on overall management and immediate supervision.

Offeror shall demonstrate their ability to provide continuity of support of the Contractor services and explain their ability to manage unplanned events and circumstances, such as unexpected employee departures. The offeror shall describe any risks associated with the PWS and any risks associated with implementation of the offeror’s management approach; describing their techniques and actions to mitigate such risks; and explain whether the techniques and actions identified for risk mitigation have been successfully used by the offeror in the performance of prior efforts.

Each Offeror must address what role, if any, any subcontractor will play and their relationship with the prime contractor.

Offerors shall provide a Quality Control Plan (QCP) and address the following four areas:

--Self-monitoring quality assurance methods --Performance measurement metrics --Compliance with the PWS.

--Methodology for resolution of any quality discrepancies

Sub-factor (3) –Staffing

The Offeror shall provide a staffing plan explaining how they will provide proper staffing that 1) meets the qualifications listed in the PWS and 2) is capable of completing the tasks described in the PWS. The explanation must be sufficiently detailed to determine that all services will be provided in accordance with the PWS.

Offerors shall address their current staff retention rate and their ability to source, recruit, and retain the highly specialized personnel required for this effort, who possess unique naval experience and security clearances who can perform the tasks in the PWS.

Offerors shall provide information that will document the offeror’s current strategies, such as fringe benefits, to maintain competent employees and reduce staff turnover.

Offerors are encouraged to engage incumbent personnel if the contractor, after careful assessment, finds the incumbent personnel qualify to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Offerors shall provide a resume for each key personnel the offeror proposes. Resumes shall not exceed two pages in length. Letters of intent are not included in the resume page count.

Personnel resumes shall emphasize knowledge, ability, and experience as they pertain to the services set forth in the PWS. Resumes shall include, at a minimum, the following information:

--Name;

--Present place of employment (if contingent hire, so note);

--Security clearance (if applicable);

--Proposed labor category;

--Experience and educational background;

--Unique skills, specific experience, and accomplishments that are directly applicable to the PWS; and --Proposed application of the individual to the contract effort (i.e., full time or part time).

The qualifications and experience of each individual shall be appropriate to the proposed labor category. Required years of program related experience must be clearly shown in the resume and may be satisfied by concurrent experience.

For each person proposed who is not currently on the contractor or subcontractor's payroll, the Offeror shall provide a signed "Letter of Intent" with the individual's resume (not included in resume page count). Without the Letter of Intent, the Government considers the resume incomplete and will not consider it in the evaluation.

If the Offeror proposed personnel from a different labor category or by a different title, a cross-reference list is required to be provided in the offeror’s proposal justifying the submission. The justification shall clearly state the basis for the deviation and rationale supporting the deviation. Failure to provide an adequate explanation may render the proposal ineligible for award.

Volume III – Past Performance

Offerors shall submit a document (8-pages maximum) listing relevant task orders/contracts (maximum of four, with at least two references for the prime contractor) completed during the last five years from the solicitation close. Offerors may submit performance data regarding current contract performance as long as a minimum of one year of performance has been completed as of the closing date of this solicitation.

The document shall include contract number, contract type, dollar value, brief description of the work, POC information, relevancy to the solicited requirement, and whether the contract was performed as the prime contractor or subcontractor.

Offerors shall contact their past performance references and request that each reference complete the “Offeror’s Past Performance Data” (OPPD) Attachment. A prime contractor shall not submit an OPPD for one of its subcontractors nor shall a subcontractor submit an OPPD for their prime contractor. OPPDs received of this nature will not be accepted or evaluated. OPPDs shall be emailed directly from the reference to Christine Jordan at christine.jordan@navy.mil and should include the RFP Number, Offeror’s name, and “OPPD’ in the Subject Line of the email. OPPDs submitted by the offeror or one of its subcontractors, will not be evaluated.

OPPD's are not mandatory but assist the Government in evaluating an offeror’s past performance. CPARS may be submitted in lieu or in addition to OPPD's for any or all references.

In addition to the OPPD, offeror’s may include in Volume III, a document listing all potential references. Information to be provided is reference name, address, phone number, email address, and other identifying information such as Contract Number and type of work performed.

Past Performance references may include federal, state, or local government and private contracts performed by the offeror for efforts similar to the Government requirement. Offerors are encouraged to provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the corrective actions.

If the offeror possesses no relevant past performance, it must affirmatively state this fact in the Volume III submittal. An Offeror’s failure to submit a Volume III - Past Performance may render their entire proposal unacceptable and not further considered for award.

Volume IV – Price

Each offeror’s price proposal must be submitted in a Microsoft Excel format, unlocked with visible formulas. Do not submit this spreadsheet in PDF format.

The spreadsheet must list the factors used to calculate the billing rates for the period of performance. The spreadsheet shall provide the labor category, hours proposed, base labor rate, indirect rates, and profit. If the offeror intends to subcontract, the subcontractor's rolled-up labor rate shall be provided as well. An eight (8) page explanatory document may be included. No cost or pricing information shall appear in the Technical Proposal. If applicable, subcontractors pricing information shall also be submitted in excel format.

Offerors should use the hours provided in the Price Template attachment; however, if an offeror proposes less hours than those listed, then it must provide a narrative detailing why and how they can accomplish the requirements of the PWS with less personnel. The explanation must clearly demonstrate the offeror’s ability to meet all goals and objectives set forth in the PWS. Failure to provide an adequate explanation may render the proposal ineligible for award.

Offerors must submit using the not to exceed (NTE) travel ceiling provided in the Price Template.

All CLINs must be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

Offerors are instructed to price a six-month option at the end of the last period of performance. This six-month option shall be priced separately from the rest of the proposal. Therefore, please do not include this option pricing in the total proposed price, it shall be independent of the proposal. The six-month option pricing shall not exceed 50% of the last option year. Should clause 52.217-8 OPTION TO EXTEND SERVICES be executed, the six-month option will be incorporated into the contract.

It is expected that this contract will be awarded based upon a determination that there is adequate price competition; therefore, the offeror is not required to submit or certify cost or pricing data (SF 1411) with its proposal. If, after receipt of proposal, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist in accordance with FAR 15.403-1, the offeror shall provide certified cost or pricing data as requested by the Contracting Officer.

Section M - Evaluation Factors

1. Basis for Award:

The Government anticipates award of a single Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) task order with Cost Reimbursement CLINs for travel resulting from this solicitation. The solicitation will be a Seaport NxG SDVOSB set-aside and award will be made using a tradeoff source selection process and Fair Opportunity under RFO 16.507.

The Government will utilize the subjective Tradeoff source selection process. This process allows for a tradeoff between non-price factors and price, which allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal to achieve a best value contract award.

The basis for award of a contract as a result of this solicitation will be an integrated assessment by the Contracting Officer of the results of the evaluation based on the evaluation factors and their importance as indicated below. The integrated assessment will include consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals. The Government reserves such right of flexibility in conducting the evaluation as is necessary to assure placement of a contract is in the Government's best interest. Accordingly, the Government reserves the right to make award to other than the lowest price or the highest rated offeror if the Government determines that doing so would result in the overall best value to the Government.

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award based on initial proposals. Offerors that take exception to the Government’s technical requirements, propose any additional term or condition, or omit any required information without prior resolution with the Contracting Officer might be eliminated from consideration. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct exchanges with any or all or a limited number of offerors, if necessary, and to permit such offerors to revise their proposals as permitted under FAR Part 16.

Vendors are hereby instructed that, regardless of any language that may be used in this solicitation, the task order evaluation and award will be conducted pursuant to FAR § 16.505 and will not use the formal source selection procedures of FAR Subpart 15.3.

Accordingly, procedures such as a competitive range determination, pre-award notifications to offerors excluded from a competitive range, pre-award debriefings, oral or written discussions with all offerors within a competitive range and requesting final proposal revisions from all offerors included within a competitive range are not required.

Offerors are advised that the Government reserves the right to reject any proposal that does not comply with proposal preparation/submission instructions contained in section L.

The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal by giving the appropriate consideration to the three (3) evaluation Factors: Technical, Past Performance, and Price. The Technical Factor has three (3) Subfactors. A rating of “Unacceptable” in any factor or sub-factor will render the entire proposal ineligible for contract award.

2. Evaluation and Rating Criteria:

The Government will evaluate proposals based on the following:

Go/No Go Evaluation:

Facility Clearance Documentation/Evidence will be evaluated as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable” – Documentation/evidence of current Security Clearance in accordance with DD 254 (see Attachment) or evidence demonstrating willingness and eligibility to obtain required security through the Defense Security Service (DSS) upon award. This documentation/evidence will be evaluated on an acceptable or unacceptable standard and is not a weighted factor. Information related to the security/facility clearance process can be obtained by visiting www.dss.mil. A rating of unacceptable shall render the offeror ineligible for award and therefore will not be further evaluated under the Tradeoff Evaluation.

VETS-4212 Compliance: The Government will verify that the offeror is in compliance with the VETS-4212 reporting requirement. In accordance with FAR 52.222-37, Employment Reports on Veterans, contractors and subcontractors holding a contract of $200,000 or more are required to file a VETS-4212 report annually. A proposal from an offeror who has failed to submit a VETS-4212 report will be considered non-compliant and will be rated as a “No-Go,” making the proposal ineligible for award and removing it from further consideration.

Evaluation of Organizational Conflicts of Interest Mitigation Plan (if applicable) The Government will evaluate the Offeror's OCI submission as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable”. The OCI submission includes the disclosure and, if applicable, the OCI mitigation plan. To receive an "acceptable" rating, the Government must determine that:

The Offeror has fully disclosed all actual or potential OCIs in accordance with FAR 9.5 and the instructions in Section L.

Any submitted OCI mitigation plan is deemed adequate by the Contracting Officer to effectively avoid, neutralize, or mitigate the identified OCI(s) to a degree that an unfair competitive advantage or biased judgment will not result.

A proposal that receives an "unacceptable" rating for the OCI evaluation will be deemed ineligible for award and will not be considered further for award.

Tradeoff Evaluation:

Factor I – Technical Factor II – Past Performance Factor III – Price The factors are listed in descending order of importance and offerors are advised that, when combined, “Technical” and “Past Performance” are significantly more important than “Price”.

Factor I “Technical” will consist of three (3) subfactors: Technical Approach, Management Plan, and Staffing, each of equal level of importance and each subfactor will be individually rated.

Factor I – Technical, will be given an overall rating based on the ratings of the three (3) subfactors. A rating of “Unacceptable” in any subfactor will render the entire factor unacceptable. A proposal with an unacceptable Factor I rating will be deemed ineligible for award and will not be further evaluated under Past Performance or Price.

Factor II – Past Performance, will be evaluated by assigning a relevancy rating for up to 5 recent past performance efforts submitted and assigning one overall rating for Past Performance Confidence. A proposal with a No Confidence past performance rating will be deemed ineligible for award and will not be further evaluated under price.

Factor III – Price, will be evaluated by comparing the total proposed price of acceptable offerors. In addition, the contracting officer may use any other FAR price analysis technique to determine if the proposed price is fair and reasonable.

Although price is significantly less important than a combined Technical and Past Performance, it should not be ignored. To the extent that the technical and past performance ratings of competing offerors are similar, such that the advantages of one proposal over another are minimal, a difference in price will take on increased significance in the best value decision.

2. Factor I – Technical:

The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the Offeror's approach through the assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies.

Offerors are on notice that well documented technical understanding, effective management approach, significant employee retention plan, and/or well-qualified staffing may be considered “strengths.” However, Offerors are advised that the Government may give a higher rating only if the strength(s) represent a real value or benefit to the Government.

The following Factor (I) Sub-factors shall be rated individually with these ratings used to determine an overall rating for Technical. Of equal order of importance, the Technical sub-factors are:

Sub-factor (1) Technical Approach:

The Government will evaluate the technical understanding and approach to determine the offeror’s overall understanding and ability to successfully accomplish the PWS requirements. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s technical approach demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to accomplish the specified work in a technically competent, timely, cost-effective manner with minimum risk to the Government. The narrative will be evaluated for a complete analysis of the performance requirements and explanation of the processes, best practices and other methods the Offeror proposes to use to meet each requirement stated in the PWS.

The evaluation will specifically assess the feasibility and thoroughness of the offeror’s methodology for:

· Fleet Engagement and Assessment: Planning, coordinating, and executing RATT ship visits and ORCA assessments to ensure a consistent and high-quality assessment process.

· Mentorship and Knowledge Transfer: Providing effective, expert-level mentorship to senior shipboard personnel, establishing credibility, and transferring knowledge to improve ship force proficiency.

· Root Cause Analysis and Reporting: Identifying systemic deficiencies and generating technically sound draft AWRs, detailed trip reports, and actionable recommendations.

· Stakeholder Communication and Liaison: Managing communications with Government stakeholders (TYCOM, ISIC, ATG, ships) to de-conflict schedules and report findings.

Sub-factor (2) Management Plan:

The Government will evaluate the degree to which the proposed approach shows clear and effective delineation of responsibility, authority, and communication through which the tasks will be managed for this requirement. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s transition plan, approach to risk mitigation, ability to provide continuity of support, and manage unplanned events and circumstances. The Quality Control Plan will be evaluated for its ability to monitor performance with appropriate metrics to maintain compliance with the PWS and correct any quality discrepancies in a timely manner.

The evaluation will specifically assess:

· The offeror’s Transition Plan for its ability to mitigate performance risk during the transition from the incumbent, including the feasibility of the timeline and the approach for onboarding personnel to prevent any disruption to scheduled ship visits.

Sub-factor (3) Staffing:

The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the proposed staffing plan to complete the tasks in the PWS with staffing that meets or exceeds the required qualifications and capable of competing the tasks in the PWS.

The Offeror’s staff retention rate and employee retention strategies will be evaluated for the efficacy to maintaining competent employees and reducing staff turnover. The ability to demonstrate minimal turnover of personnel and retention of incumbent personnel may be considered a strength(s).

All proposed Key Personnel resumes will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the described knowledge, experience, and education meet or exceed the key personnel requirements in the PWS.

While Key Personnel resumes do not need to demonstrate all of the desired qualifications in Section 7.0, Key Personnel resumes that do not demonstrate the specific desired qualifications listed in Section 7.0, which increases the risk of unsuccessful performance of specific PWS tasks, may be evaluated as a weakness

Proposals whose Key Personnel do not meet the minimum PWS requirements may be deemed technically unacceptable and therefore ineligible for award.

EVALUATION: The Government will utilize a tradeoff source selection process using the adjectival ratings/descriptions in Table 1. to evaluate Factor I and its subfactors. Offerors receiving an UNACCEPTABLE rating for this factor will not be further evaluated for past performance or price. Inherent in the Factor I rating definition is a component for risk, reflecting the projected risk of the proposed approach to successfully perform the contract. To receive an “Acceptable” rating the proposal must clearly demonstrate that the offeror meets the requirements as defined by the PWS and all RFP attachments with, at worst, moderate risk.

The following table of Ratings/Definition/Description shall be used for the Technical/Risk Rating for each Sub-factor and for Factor (I). The overall Factor I (Technical) rating will be determined by evaluating the ratings for each of the sub-factors. The overall rating will be used for tradeoff analysis. No Technical Proposal may be given more than a marginal rating unless the proposal clearly shows that the offer meets requirement as defined by the PWS and all RFP attachments.

Table 1.Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Combined Technical/Risk Rating

requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate

of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate risk

requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

* Offerors are reminded that receiving a rating of “unacceptable” in any sub-factor will render the entire proposal ineligible for award.

3. Factor II – Past Performance:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance to assess the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing the requirements as outlined in this RFP. Past performance will be evaluated on a subjective, integrated assessment of recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance. All proposals will be rated for past performance utilizing the adjectival ratings in Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating below.

The government’s assessment of performance risk is not intended to be the product of a mechanical or mathematical analysis of an offeror’s performance on list of contracts, but rather the product of subjective judgment of the government after it considers all available relevant and recent information.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal and the information gathered from other sources available to the Government. These include, but are not limited to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or other databases; interviews with Program managers/Contracting Officers, etc.

There are three aspects to past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. Past performance references not found to be recent will not be further evaluated for relevancy, and references not found to be relevant will not be further evaluated for quality.

Each past performance reference will be evaluated to determine recency, with recent past performance being performance under contracts accomplished within the past five (5) years from solicitation close.

The Government will evaluate the relevancy of each past performance reference, with relevant past performance being performance under contracts for work that is for similar services, scope, complexity, dollar value, and/or contract type. Each past performance reference will be assigned an adjectival rating in accordance with the below table:

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Past performance of greater relevancy 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. Past performance reference that that has no relevance to the instant requirement will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably and will not be considered in the overall assessment of Past Performance Confidence. However, the number of more relevant contracts an offeror has, the higher the confidence may be.

Each past performance reference under each offeror’s Past Performance submission that is found to have at least some relevance to the instant requirement will be evaluated to determine the quality of the offeror’s performance under that reference. Quality of the relevant past performance will form the basis for the Performance Confidence Assessment. The quality of performance that that has no relevance to the instant requirement will not be considered in the overall assessment of Performance Confidence. An offeror that is determined to have no relevant Past Performance will be rated as Unknown Confidence (Neutral).

EVALUATION: The Government will assign an overall past performance confidence rating for each proposal using the adjectival ratings/descriptions in Table 3. This rating will be the Offeror’s overall rating for Past Performance. An overall rating of “No Confidence” will render the offeror ineligible for award and it will not be further evaluated for Price.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating

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

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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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. Such offerors will receive a rating of “Neutral Confidence.”

Offerors are reminded that if they possess no relevant past performance, they must affirmatively state this fact. A proposal that omits Factor II may be given a rating of “No Confidence” and render the entire proposal ineligible for award.

4. Factor III – Price:

Offerors are reminded that a finding of “Unacceptable” in either Factor I or “No Confidence” in Factor II will result in the entire proposal being determined ineligible for award, and therefore will not be further evaluated under Factor III – Price.

Although, when combined, the non-price factors Factor I (Technical), and Factor II (Past Performance) are significantly more important than Factor III (Price), Factor III – Price’s degree of importance will increase with the degree of equality of proposals in relation to Technical and Past Performance. The significance of the non-price factors will also decrease when the offeror’s price is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government.

Price/Cost Analysis will be performed to determine whether the proposed prices are fair and reasonable using one or more of the techniques listed in FAR 15.404-1. In order for an offeror to be eligible for award, the offeror shall propose on all CLINs. A price proposal that leaves a blank for any CLIN will not be considered for award.

Offerors that fail to provide an adequate explanation for proposing less hours than provided in the Price Template may be determined ineligible for award.

Price will be evaluated by totaling the prices for all line items, including option periods, for which the Government has requested the offeror provide a price. Option prices will be evaluated at time of award. Evaluation of the options WILL NOT obligate the Government to exercise the options.

As part of the Price Factor evaluation, the Government will evaluate the Option to Extend Services under FAR 52.217-8 by including six (6) months (50 percent) of the Offerors evaluated price for Option Year 4. The Government may choose to exercise the extension of services option within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract for periods up to and shorter than 6-months but not exceeding 6-months in aggregate.

5. Definitions

Best Value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. See FAR 2.101.

Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

Communications are exchanges, between the Government and offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to the establishment of the competitive range.

Competitive Range is all the most highly rated proposals (based on the rating of each proposal against all evaluation criteria), unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency.

Deficiency is 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.

Discussions are negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range.

Evaluation Notice (EN) is the PCO’s written notification to the offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or in support of discussions.

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.

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.

Requirements Documents are all aspects of the RFP that convey the needs of the Government to offerors, including the SOO, SOW, PWS, technical requirement documents, and system requirement documents.

Requiring Office is the entity (for example, a program management office or other organizational entity) responsible for translating user requirements into the requirements documents within the RFP that communicate those requirements to offerors.

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, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. (For firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk definition.)

Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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

Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) is a group of senior Government personnel who provide counsel during the source selection process and must prepare the comparative analysis of the SSEB's evaluation results, when directed by the SSA.

Source Selection Authority (SSA) is the official designated to make the source selection decision.

Source Selection Team (SST) is a team that is tailored to the unique acquisition, tasked with carrying out a source selection. Composition of the team generally consists of the SSA, PCO (if different from the SSA), SSAC, SSEB, Advisors, Cost or Price Experts, Legal Counsel, Small Business Specialists, and other subject-matter experts.

Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) is the document that reflects the SSA's independent, integrated, comparative assessment and decision.

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) is a group of Government and, if needed, approved non-Government personnel, representing the various functional disciplines relevant to the acquisition.

Source Selection Plan (SSP) is a plan that describes how the source selection will be organized, how proposals will be evaluated and analyzed, and how source(s) will be selected.

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.

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.