1240BF21Q0087 MV Chugach Interpretive Exhibits - RFQ.pdf

1240BF21Q0087 – Alaska Regional Office – M/V Chugach Interpretive Exhibits (Wrangell, AK)

(i) This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in FAR

Subpart 12.6, FAR Subpart 13 and as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; offers are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued.

(ii) This solicitation is issued as a Request for Quotation (RFQ).

(iii) The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal

Acquisition Circular 2021-04.

(iv) This procurement is set aside for total small business. The NAICS code is 713930 - Marinas and the Small

Business Size Standard is $8.0 Million

(v) Schedule of Items

M/V Chugach Interpretive Exhibits

Period of Performance Base Year: 10/01/21 – 06/30/22

ITEM

NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAY

UNIT EST QTY TOTAL

0001 Planning & design of interpretive exhibits for the MV Chugach EA 1

Develop conceptual designs for associated infrastructure around the MV Chugach (exterior walkway, viewing platform and shelter for the vessel)

EA

0003 Fabricate the panels/exhibits EA 10

0004 Ship the panels/exhibits to Wrangell, AK LS 1

BASE TOTAL

Period of Performance Option Year 1: 01/01/22 – 06/30/22

ITEM

NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAY

UNIT EST QTY TOTAL

1001 Design & fabricate remaining off-site or virtual interpretive elements EA 3

1002 Installation of all on-site interpretive panels/exhibits in Wrangell, AK EA 10

OPTION TOTAL

GRAND TOTAL

EA - EACH

LS - LUMP SUM

*Will be awarded as a firm fixed price contract.

(vi) Description of Requirement

The M/V Chugach is a 62-foot wooden-hulled crew vessel owned by the Forest Service, listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The vessel was built in 1925 and is the last wooden ranger boat in the Forest Service fleet. Continued operation of the M/V Chugach as part of the Forest Service fleet was no longer practicable. The Forest Service conducted an extensive alternative use feasibility study 2015-2016 to identify a new use for the M/V Chugach that preserves her historic integrity and presents opportunities to share with the public her history of service.

During the feasibility study's public comment period, the City and Borough of Wrangell produced a viable proposal to work with the Forest Service to preserve and interpret the M/V Chugach at the city and borough-owned Wrangell Museum, housed within the Nolan Center. With this in mind, Tongass National Forest (Wrangell Ranger District) seeks a qualified contractor to develop, design, and deliver interpretive panels/exhibits for the M/V Chugach in Wrangell, AK.

(vi) Place of Delivery & Acceptance:

M/V Chugach The Nolan Center 296 Campbell Drive Wrangell, AK 99929

(vii) Offeror Information

Vendor Name: Phone:

Address: Email:

Point of Contact:

DUNS:

Date SAM expires:

Instructions to Offerors

1. Provide an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) for each commercially available Information and Communication Technology (ICT) item offered through this contract. Create the ACR using the Voluntary Product Accessibility Template Version 2.1 or later, located at https://www.itic.org/policy/accessibility/vpat . Complete each ACR in accordance with the instructions provided in the VPAT template. Each ACR must address the applicable Section 508 requirements referenced in the Work Statement. Each ACR shall state exactly how the ICT meets the applicable standards in the remarks/explanations column, or through additional narrative. All "Not Applicable" (N/A) responses must be explained in the remarks/explanations column or through additional narrative. Address each standard individually and with specificity and clarify whether conformance is achieved throughout the entire ICT Item (for example - user functionality, administrator functionality, and reporting), or only in limited areas of the ICT Item.

Provide a description of the evaluation methods used to support Section 508 conformance claims. The agency reserves the right, prior to making an award decision, to perform testing on some or all of the Offeror’s proposed ICT items to validate Section 508 conformance claims made in the ACR.

2. Describe your approach to incorporating universal design principles to ensure ICT products or services are designed to support disabled users.

3. Describe plans for features that do not fully conform to the Section 508 Standards.

4. Describe "typical" user scenarios and tasks, including individuals with disabilities, to ensure fair and accurate accessibility testing of the ICT product or service being offered.

Attachments Included in this package are the following attachments:

• Statement of Work

• Conceptual Site Plan

• As Built Site Plan

• M/V Chugach Photos

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR QUOTATIONS:

To be considered for this award, each offeror shall submit a quote with the following:

(1) Complete pages 1 & 2 - filled out and signed with pricing.

Be sure to fill out vendor information, including your name, business, & DUNS #.

(2) Response to non-price evaluation criteria (see pages 4-6).

(3) Quotes must be e-mailed by 12:00PM (Alaska Time) on 09/27/2021 to:

steven.behrns@usda.gov della.koelling@usda.gov https://www.itic.org/policy/accessibility/vpat mailto:steven.behrns@usda.gov mailto:della.koelling@usda.gov

Evaluation Criteria

Section 1: Evaluation Methodology Each contractor shall prepare a proposal for review and evaluation by the Forest Service.

Proposal Content (not more than 20 pages):

• Proposal Summary

• Team Description

• Methods of Implementation

• Proposed Delivery Milestones

• Brief Description of immediate past three (3) projects completed of similar nature, include contact information for the hiring organization

• Cost Pricing Sheet

Section 2: Evaluation Factors

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

The evaluation factors are in descending order of importance (decreasing in importance).

Factor 1: Technical Skills and Abilities

Submission Requirements:

• Expertise in interpretive planning, exhibit design and fabrication

• Completeness and attention to detail of proposal documents

Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:

• Adjectival Rating and Technical Confidence Ratings

• The adjectival rating and the technical confidence rating are of equal importance.

Factor 2: Past Performance

Submission Requirements:

• Experience with past projects that are similar in scope and scale

• Past Performance Confidence and Performance Confidence Assessment

• The past performance confidence rating and performance confidence assessment are of equal importance but less important than the evaluation criteria identified in Factor 1: Technical Skills and Abilities.

• Ratings will also be based on relevancy and recency.

Factor 3: Cost/Price

Submission Requirements:

• Cost is determined to be fair and reasonable for the work described.

• Ratings will be based upon a cost analysis to determine reasonableness.

• The cost/price rating is less important than the evaluation criteria identified in Factor 1: Technical Skills and

Abilities and Factor 2: Past Performance.

Section 3: Definitions Adjectival Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition Exceptional Quote/Offer contains no deficiencies and fully addresses all aspects of the criteria and demonstrates an excellent approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Many strengths exist, far outweighing any weaknesses. The highest quality of contract performance is anticipated with very low risk.

Very Good Quote/Offer contains no deficiencies; fully addresses all aspects of the criteria and demonstrates a very effective approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Some weaknesses may exist; however, the weaknesses, if any, are outweighed by strengths. A high quality of contract performance is anticipated with low risk.

Satisfactory Quote/Offer contains no deficiencies; addresses all aspects of the criteria and demonstrates an adequate approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. A quality contract performance is anticipated with an acceptable amount of risk.

Marginal Quote/Offer may contain deficiencies; fails to address all of the criteria and does not demonstrate an adequate approach/solution or understanding of the requirements. One or more weaknesses exist which are not offset by strengths.

Contract performance is anticipated with high risk.

Unsatisfactory Quote/Offer contains many deficiencies and does not address all aspects of the criteria and/or does not present evidence demonstrating an adequate approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Many weaknesses and/or omissions exist creating an unacceptable risk.

Technical Confidence Rating Confidence Rating Definition

High Confidence (Low Risk)

The Government has high confidence the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

Some Confidence (Moderate Risk)

The Government has some confidence the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence (High Risk)

The Government has low confidence the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

Past Performance Confidence

Rating Description

Relevant Past/present performance effort involved much of the similarity, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Past/present performance effort involved some of the similarity, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the similarity, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation required.

Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence No performance record is identifiable, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Quote/Proposal Metrics When identifying the merits of a quote/proposal the following three terms shall be utilized along with the definitions.

Narrative Element Definition

Strength A significant, outstanding, or exceptionally positive aspect of a Quote/Offer.

Weakness Any aspect of a Quote/Offer increasing the potential for problems and issues with regard to contract performance. The Quote/Offer provides a minimally acceptable response to the Government’s requirements. The response leaves the evaluator with uncertainty as to the understanding of the work, capability to successfully perform the work, or capability to effectively manage the work effort.

Deficiency A material failure of a Quote/Offer to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a Quote/Offer increasing the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.