6913G624Q300002 TechCriteria_V2C.pdf

Request for Quotation (RFQ) No. 6913G624Q300002 Procurement Request No. V3242199

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

SUBMISSION OF QUOTES

Vendors are required to meet all RFQ requirements in addition to those identified as evaluation factors.

Failure to meet a requirement may result in a vendor submission being ineligible for award. If the Vendor finds it necessary to take exception to any of the requirements specified in the solicitation, the Vendor shall clearly identify where it is addressed in its proposal and provide a complete explanation of why the exception was taken, what benefit (if any) accrues to the Government, and its impact (if any) on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. Each exception shall clearly identify the specific paragraph and/or part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken.

Quotes shall be submitted by 3:00 PM, Eastern Standard Time on November 20, 2023. Quotes shall be submitted to the contracting officer, Karen Marino via email at karen.marino@dot.gov.

Quote submission will consist of two (2) parts: Price and Technical Submission. Please submit a separate price submission and a separate technical submission. In addition to price the following three technical factors will be used to determine best value.

• Technical Understanding/Merit

• Staffing

• Past Performance

In evaluating proposals, Technical Understanding/Merit is more important than Staffing, and Past Performance is less important than Technical Understanding/Merit or Staffing. The three technical factors are significantly more important than price.

SECTION I –PRICE

The Government intends to issue a firm fixed price (FFP) purchase order. CLIN 00100 in the Statement of Work (SOW) is funded, and CLINs 00200-00900 are optional. Pricing is needed for all CLINs including labor and travel where appropriate.

Vendors shall submit a price submission which shall include the following:

• Labor rates for the proposed Labor Categories

• Hours by Labor Category and total hours

• Cost by Labor Category and total cost

• Supporting documentation

• Assumptions, conditions, and exceptions related to price.

Pricing submissions shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages. Price quotes shall be held firm for sixty

(60) days.

mailto:karen.marino@dot.gov

Procurement Request No. V3242209

TECHNICAL SUBMISSION

The Technical submission shall include the following:

FACTOR 1 –Technical Understanding/Merit FACTOR 2 –Staffing FACTOR 3 –Past Performance

The Vendor shall limit the technical response to a total of fifteen (15) pages, exclusive of resumes which shall be limited to four (4) pages each.

FACTOR 1 –Technical Understanding/Merit

Vendors shall provide a response that describes in detail their technical approach to meeting the requirements set forth in the Government’s Statement of Work (SOW). The vendor must demonstrate 1) an in-depth technical understanding of the state of the practice necessary for launch vehicle noise measurements and sonic boom measurements, 2) familiarity with launch vehicle operations and 3) the required knowledge and capabilities to independently perform all tasks in the PWS. The response shall also include a description of how each task will be managed.

In its response, the Vendor must demonstrate documented capabilities in: 1. Using measurement microphones and associated hardware for recording calibrated acoustic pressure time series data synchronized to a GPS-based time source, including past experience with transportation-related noise source(s); 2. Deploying acoustics equipment for outdoor unattended measurements; and 3.

participating and/or leading measurement program(s) comprising multiple organizations and/or operators.

FACTOR 2–Staffing

The Vendor shall propose a staffing plan that includes sufficient staffing and hours to meet the requirements of the SOW. The Government will consider and evaluate the following aspects of the Vendor’s proposal regarding Staffing:

• Staffing plan, which includes the labor categories to be used for meeting this requirement, along with the tasks assigned to each labor category. All key personnel shall be named.

• Vendor résumés shall be provided for all proposed technical staff. Vendor résumés must demonstrate the qualifications of the proposed key personnel (see below) and other proposed staff in terms of technical experience, expertise, education, and training relevant to the effort described in the SOW.

Expertise Level of Proposed Key Personnel - The following labor categories are key personnel who shall be named. Note that one person may fill multiple roles if all individual requirements are met. Resumes of the key personnel shall demonstrate the following minimum qualifications:

• Project Manager:

o The Project Manager must have a minimum of ten years of experience managing measurement or related technical programs. The proposal must provide at least two examples where the Project Manager managed measurement campaigns similar in size and scope to the campaign described in the SOW.

• Subject Matter Expert:

The Subject Matter Expert must have a minimum of five years of experience related to noise modeling and/or analysis from launch vehicles, sonic booms, high-performance jet aircraft and/or medium- to heavy-lift rotorcraft. The proposal must provide at least two examples where the Subject Matter Expert provided major contributions to projects similar in size and scope to the campaign described in the SOW.

• Field Crew Member:

o The Field Crew shall have demonstrated experience specifically in outdoor acoustics measurements in potentially adverse conditions, following requirements of a documented standard. This proposal must provide example(s) of successful deployments similar in size and scope to the campaign described in the SOW.

The resumes will be evaluated for experience, education, and accomplishments against the task areas described in the SOW. In addition to applicable technical experience, resumes should reflect experience (if any) in managing and/or directing projects similar in size and scope to those described in the SOW. Resumes should be provided for only those personnel for whom the Vendor can make a firm commitment to this task order. Resumes must also be verifiable in that relevant dates, names, and addresses of educational institutions and employers must be provided for all experience, education, and specialized training claimed.

FACTOR 3–Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the past performance record of the proposed vendor and proposed major subcontractor(s) for this task order. A major subcontractor(s) is a subcontractor that is proposed to perform at least 20 percent (20%) of the effort. The Vendor shall submit documentation for at least two (2) recent and relevant projects. The Government will evaluate the likelihood of successful performance and relative capability to perform the requirements outlined within the SOW. The Government will only evaluate projects or contracts that have already been performed. Past performance submission shall include:

• Recency and Relevancy of the past performance history.

o Recency – Projects are considered recent if they have been completed within the last ten (10) years. Project examples that fail to meet this condition will not be evaluated.

o Relevancy – Projects are considered relevant if they are similar to the tasks of the type and complexity described in the SOW. Relevancy specifically refers to launch vehicles, sonic booms, high-performance jet aircraft and/or medium-to heavy-lift rotorcraft.

• For each contract or project, the Vendor shall provide the following: customer’s name, organization, and contact information; contract or project number and title; dates of performance; a description of the work performed and how it is relevant to the SOW.

• The Vendor shall also identify the amount of involvement of the proposed key personnel under this task order in the past performance examples. It is preferable that named key personnel in the Vendor’s proposal are also staff in the Vendor’s Past Performance examples.

At a minimum, the Vendor must demonstrate relevant experience by providing one example of a publicly released report describing successful acoustic measurements.

Highest preference is given to vendors who demonstrate they have robust transportation noise measurement programs and/or rocket propulsion noise measurement experience.

Second highest preference is given to Vendors who demonstrate they have had relevant measurement experience with high-performance jet aircraft and/or sonic booms.

ADJECTIVAL RATING SYSTEM

The Technical Evaluation Team shall use the following adjectival rating system to evaluate the Technical Submission:

Exceptional: Proposal meets all requirements and indicates an extensive detailed approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths, no significant weaknesses, or any deficiencies. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is extremely low.

Very Good: Proposal meets all requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding. The proposal contains strengths, no significant weaknesses, or any deficiencies. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Satisfactory: Proposal meets all requirements and indicates an adequate approach to and understanding of the requirements of the RFQ. Proposal has some strengths or weaknesses, but no deficiencies. Any weaknesses are offset by strengths or will have little or no impact on contract performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Marginal: The proposal does not meet the requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach to and understanding of the requirements of the RFQ. The proposal has one or more weaknesses that are not offset by strengths. The risk of unacceptable performance to the Government is moderate.

Unsatisfactory: Proposal does not meet the requirements of the RFQ. The proposal contains significant numerous weaknesses and deficiencies. Th proposal shows a clear lack of understanding of the requirement. The risk of unacceptable performance to the Government is high. Proposal is unawardable.

ADJECTIVAL RATING SYSTEM