0_Solicitation_70Z02318QPLT00100_(12_DEC_2017).doc

Solicitation # 70Z02318QPLT00100 Release Date: Thursday, January 11th , 2018

Solicitation # 70Z02318QPLT00100 Release Date: Thursday, January 11th , 2018

NOTICE FOR FILING AGENCY PROTESTS

It is the policy of the United States Coast Guard (USCG) to issue solicitations and make contract awards in a fair and timely manner. The Ombudsman Program for Agency Protests (OPAP) was established to investigate agency protest issues and resolve them without expensive and time-consuming litigation. OPAP is an independent reviewing authority that is empowered to grant a prevailing protester essentially the same relief as the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Interested parties are encouraged to seek resolution of their concerns within the USCG as an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) forum, rather than filing a protest with the GAO or some external forum. Interested parties may seek resolution of their concerns informally or opt to file a formal agency protest with the contracting officer or Ombudsman.

Informal forum with the Ombudsman. Interested parties who believe a specific USCG procurement is unfair or otherwise defective should first direct their concerns to the cognizant contracting officer. If the contracting officer is unable to satisfy the concerns, the interested party is encouraged to contact the USCG Ombudsman for Agency Protests. Under this informal process, the agency is not required to suspend contract award performance. Use of an informal forum does not suspend any time requirement for filing a protest with the agency or other forum. In order to ensure a timely response, interested parties should provide the following information to the Ombudsman: solicitation/contract number, contracting office, contracting officer, and solicitation closing date (if applicable).

Formal Agency Protest with the Ombudsman. Prior to submitting a formal agency protest, protesters must first use their best efforts to resolve their concerns with the contracting officer through open and frank discussions. If the protester's concerns are unresolved, an independent review is available by the Ombudsman. The protester may file a formal agency protest to either the contracting officer or as an alternative to that, the Ombudsman under the OPAP program. Contract award or performance will be suspended during the protest period unless contract award or performance is justified, in writing, for urgent and compelling reasons or is determined in writing to be in the best interest of the Government. The agency's goal is to resolve protests in less than 35 calendar days from the date of filing. Protests shall include the information set forth in FAR 33.103. If the protester fails to submit the required information, resolution of the protest may be delayed or the protest may be dismissed. This will not preclude re-filing of the protest to meet the requirement. To be timely, protests must be filed within the period specified in FAR 33.103(e). Formal protests filed under the OPAP program should be submitted to:

Department of Homeland Security

United States Coast Guard (CG-91)

Ombudsman Program for Agency Protests

Email: OPAP@uscg.mil

Fax: 202-372-8447

Phone: 202-475-5786

More information about the Ombudsman Program for Agency Protests (OPAP) can be found at http://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/business/ombudsman.asp

Commandant

United States Coast Guard

2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20593-7828

STOP 7828

Staff Symbol: CG-9121

Phone: (202) 475-3706

E-mail: Nate.Dolezal@uscg.mil

From:

Mr. N. K. Dolezal, United States Coast Guard (USCG) Contracting Officer (CG-9121)

To:

All Businesses Under the North American Industry Classification Systems (NAICS) code 611430, “Professional and Management Development Training”.

Subject:

Request for Proposal (RFP) # 70Z02318QPLT00100

1. Purpose. The Government invites all businesses in the applicable NAICS code to submit a proposal to provide training support services, lodging and meals, in accordance with Attachment (A), the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

2.

Authority and NAICS. This acquisition is being conducted pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12, “Acquisition of Commercial Items”. The applicable NAICS is 611430, “Professional and Management Development Training”.

3.

Acquisition Planning Forecast System (AFPS). The relevant APFS record is F2016035405.

4.

No Direction to Proceed. This RFP shall not be considered direction to proceed with the subject effort, nor a promise of future direction to proceed. Offerors are solely responsible for this RFP’s submission costs.

5.

Small Business. This acquisition is unrestricted.

6.

Commercial Items. This acquisition is for commercial items as described in FAR Subpart 2.101, “Definitions”.

7.

Intent, Contract Type, and Guaranteed Minimum. The Government intends to award one (1) Firm-Fixed Price (FFP), single-award Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract as a result of this solicitation.

The guaranteed minimum will be met by either issuing a task order for at least one (1) student in one

(1) class simultaneously with the IDIQ award or obligating that same amount of money to the IDIQ at the time of award.

8.

Period of Performance. The approximate period of performance will be a base period of twelve (12) months and four (4) 12-month options for a total potential period of performance of sixty (60) months if all options are exercised.

9.

Questions. All questions shall be submitted via email no later than Thursday, January 18th, 2018, at 12:00 (Noon) Eastern Time. Questions submitted via any other method other than email will not be accepted. All questions or concerns regarding this RFP shall be submitted via email to the Contract Specialist, Ms. Petra McPherson, at petra.a.mcpherson@uscg.mil and the Contracting Officer, Mr. Nate Dolezal, at nate.dolezal@uscg.mil.

This deadline ensures that timely responses can be provided to each question. Questions asked after the deadline may or may not be answered.

Answers will be provided to all timely submitted questions. Answers will be sent out in an Excel sheet via email to all Offerors as soon as possible. All questions and answers will be stripped of any identifying company information.

10.

Incumbent Contractor. There is no incumbent contractor. However, historically these services were provided by the Institute for Defense and Business (IDB), located at 1250 Environ Way in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27517.

11.

Basis for Award. The Government intends to award the single-award IDIQ to the Offeror whose proposal conforming to this RFP will be most advantageous to USCG, price and other factors considered.

A trade-off analysis will be used to determine best value. The evaluation will include assessing the: strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks, associated with each proposal, in conjunction with considering each Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance and price.

Please note that Offeror’s proposals will not be numerically ranked.

The Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. The determination of whether or not to conduct discussions will be made at the unilateral discretion of the Contracting Officer.

12.

Proposal Package Instructions. All proposals shall be submitted via email no later than Friday, January 25th, 2018, at 12:00 (Noon) Eastern Time. Proposals submitted via any other method other than email will not be accepted. All proposals shall be submitted via email to the Contract Specialist, Ms. Petra McPherson, at petra.a.mcpherson@uscg.mil and the Contracting Officer, Mr. Nate Dolezal, at nate.dolezal@uscg.mil.

It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that all elements of the proposal arrive in a timely fashion. Please do not wait until the last minute to submit a proposal; please allow adequate time for the proposal to be transmitted. Proposals with missing and/or untimely delivered volumes risk rejection by the Contracting Officer.

Proposals shall be submitted as four (4) separate volumes as identified below. All electronic file names shall include the Offeror’s name and the last eight (8) digits of this RFP – “-PLT00100”.

Each volume shall be submitted as a separate document, but all four (4) documents may be submitted in one (1) email. Please note that the size of each email shall be ten (10) megabytes or less. If necessary, Offerors may break up their proposal volume submissions into separate emails.

Volume 1: Technical Capability

Volume 2: Past Performance

Volume 3: Price

Volume 4: Representations and Certifications Each volume of the Offeror’s proposal shall be written in Arial font with a font size of eleven (11) with single-spacing on 8.5 x 11-size pages. A smaller font size of eight (8) or higher is acceptable for charts, graphs, and captions. The document background shall be white and the use of color shall be limited to table and charts.

Each volume shall be provided in a Microsoft Word format (readable by Microsoft Office 2007) or in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). The sole exception is for the Volume 3 pricing spreadsheet, which is to be provided in Microsoft Excel format (readable by Microsoft Office 2007).

Each volume shall contain only the contents noted below. Do not attempt to extend the technical volume into the past performance or price volumes or vice versa. Any such attempts will not be evaluated and will not factor into the source selection process.

13.

Volume 1, “Technical Capability”, Contents. In this volume, the Offeror shall explain how it will meet the Attachment (A), “PWS”, requirements. More specifically, the Offeror shall:

a. Describe all courses and the estimated schedule of the courses being offered per PWS Section 5.0, “REQUIREMENTS”,

b. Describe the Offeror’s facility and lodging, including the addresses for both and the mileage distance for both from all nearby airports, per PWS Section 4.2 “LODGING”.

c. Describe the meals provided for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, per PWS Section 4.3, “MEALS”, and

The technical proposal shall be logically organized in accordance with Attachment (A), “PWS”. This means that after the Offeror includes any introductory information in the technical proposal, the proposal shall align with the PWS in sequential order (i.e., address PWS Section 1.0, 1.1, 1.2…2.0, 3.0, etc.) so as to minimize confusion and ensure that all PWS requirements are addressed.

The technical proposal shall not exceed twenty (20) pages, exclusive of the cover sheet, table of contents, and résumés. Any material provided beyond the twentieth (20th) page will not be evaluated. While there is no overall page limit for the resumes the Offeror provides, each resume shall not exceed three (3) pages.

14.

Volume 2, “Past Performance”, Contents. The Offeror shall provide the following in its Volume 2 to be considered responsive: up to three (3) past performance examples for services provided on services of comparable scope and complexity as this solicitation’s requirements.

The Government will only evaluate recent and relevant past performance. All other past performance will be disregarded and not used in the source selection process. “Recent” is defined as work performed within the past three (3) years as of the solicitation release date (i.e., 03 January 2015 to 03 January 2018). “Relevancy” is defined as work similar in scope, size, and complexity, of the present requirement.

For each past performance example, Offerors shall complete Section A of Attachment (B), “Past Performance Questionnaire”, to include:

a. the agency or organization name being supported,

b. the current contact number,

c. The email and phone numbers for a reference knowledgeable about the Offeror’s performance (preferably the Government contracting officer or contracting officer’s representative), and,

d. A brief statement of the services provided, how these services are relevant to this solicitation, and the period of performance of the services provided.

Section (B) of Attachment (B) is to be completed only by the customer point-of-contact (preferably the contracting officer or the contracting officer’s representative of the referenced contract action). The point-of-contact himself or herself shall email the completed Attachment (2) to the to the joint attention of the Contract Specialist, Ms. Petra McPherson, at petra.a.mcpherson@uscg.mil and the Contracting Officer, Mr. Nate Dolezal, at nate.dolezal@uscg.mil.

Any completed Attachment (B) forms that come from the offeror itself will not be considered in the source selection. All completed Attachment (B) forms must be received by the Contracting Officer by the proposal due date or risk rejection.

Past performance examples with the federal Government are most preferred. If no recent and relevant federal Government contracts are available, then Offerors may use state or local Government examples. If no recent and relevant state and local Government examples are available, then Offerors may use commercial contract examples.

Offerors may choose to submit a recent and relevant completed Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) report instead of a past performance questionnaire. The completed PPIRS report may be emailed directly to the Contract Specialist, Ms. Petra McPherson, at petra.a.mcpherson@uscg.mil and the Contracting Officer, Mr. Nate Dolezal, at nate.dolezal@uscg.mil.

Please note that even with a completed PPIRS report, it is still the offeror’s responsibility to note how the reference is recent and relevant to this solicitation’s requirements. The offeror may provide this detail (if it is not clear from the PPIRS report itself) in this Volume 2.

This volume has no page limit.

15.

Volume 3, “Price”, Contents. The Offeror shall provide the following in its Volume 3 to be considered responsive: a completed proposal pricing spreadsheet using Attachment (C), “Pricing Spreadsheet”, in Microsoft Excel.

Offerors shall complete only the Column D items marked “PRICE PER STUDENT”. Pricing shall be completed for all Column D items or the proposal will be considered non-responsive. Offerors shall not alter any other part of the spreadsheet.

Offerors are encouraged to provide discounts off their commercial labor rates.

Offerors’ price proposals shall not exceed two (2) pages, including the supplied spreadsheet and a one (1) page Word document describing any details the Offeror wishes to add on its pricing approach.

16.

Volume 4, “Representations and Certifications”, Contents. This volume shall not contain any technical, past performance, or pricing information. This volume shall contain the Offeror’s:

a. Completed terms and conditions, as noted in Attachment (D), “Terms and Conditions,” or indicate that the required information is available in the System for Award Management (SAM),

b. Exceptions or assumptions regarding the RFP. Please note that any exceptions taken to the RFP may render the Offeror’s proposal to be technically unacceptable and ineligible for award.

c. Statement that the proposal shall be valid for at least 120 days from the date of submittal to the Government.

d.

Statement on whether or not the Offeror is currently active in the DHS Mentor-Protégé Program and a signed letter of mentor-protégé agreement approval from the DHS Office of Small Business and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU).

This volume has no page limit.

17.

Evaluation - Overview. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. The following evaluation factors will be utilized in determining the proposal for award using a trade-off analysis in descending order of importance:

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price Factor 4: DHS Mentor-Protégé Program As proposals approach equal ratings as a result of the technical evaluation, price will become more important in making the award determination. Award may be made to other than the lowest priced Offeror(s) if the Government determines that a price premium is warranted due to technical merit. The Government may also award to other than the highest technically rated proposals, if the Government determines that a price premium is not warranted.

18. Evaluation – Management Approach and Technical Capability. Offerors will be evaluated to the extent that their proposals meet the requirements outlined previously in this RFP and how well their proposals satisfy the PWS requirements. If applicable, the attributes of each offerors’ technical proposal will be described using the follow descriptors in Table 1.

TABLE 1 – DESCRIPTORS AND THEIR DEFINITIONS

Offerors will receive a single combined technical rating for Technical Capability in accordance with Table 2 below. There are no technical sub-factors, thus no technical sub-factor ratings will be provided.

TABLE 2 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY EVALUATION FACTOR RATINGS AND THEIR DEFINITIONS

19.

Evaluation – Past Performance. The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine the extent to which its past performance is recent, relevant, and demonstrates the likelihood of successful performance on the present requirement.

If found to be recent and relevant, references will be evaluated using the factors and ratings identified in FAR 42.1503, “Procedures”, which are the same ratings and factors as used in PPIRS. At the end of the past performance evaluation, an Offeror’s past performance will earn one of the following ratings in Table 4.

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS AND THEIR DEFINITIONS

An Offeror without a record of past performance or for whom information is not available will be rated as “Neutral.” A rating of “Neutral” does not provide an Offeror with an advantage or a disadvantage.

USCG may use relative present and/or past performance data obtained from a variety of sources, not just those contract actions identified by an Offeror. The information gathered for past performance may also be used in the responsibility determination.

USCG will review all past performance data submitted with the proposal and may contact the referenced companies/organizations and others to verify past performance information.

20.

Evaluation – Price. In accordance with FAR provision 52.217-5, “Evaluation of Options”, the Government will evaluate the total price by combining the price for the base period and the four (4) option years, as noted below. This total price will be considered the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

Once this Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is calculated for all Offerors, each Offeror’s TEP will be compared against the other Offerors and the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) for price reasonableness (i.e., whether an Offeror’s TEP is too high), price realism (i.e., whether an Offeror’s TEP is too low), and for balance (i.e., whether an Offeror’s pricing differences between the base period and option periods pose an unacceptable risk to the Government).

Offers that are unreasonably priced, unrealistically priced, or unbalanced, may be rejected by the Government as posing an unacceptable amount of risk.

21.

Evaluation – DHS Mentor-Protégé Program. Per the Homeland Security Acquisition Regulations (HSAR) provision 3052.219-72, “Evaluation of Prime Contractor Participation in the DHS Mentor-Protégé Program”, additional evaluation credit will be given to any prime Offeror currently active in the DHS Mentor-Protégé Program.

An Offeror may still win the IDIQ contract award even if the Offeror is not in the DHS Mentor-Protégé Program.

22.

Attachments.

(A) Performance Work Statement (PWS)

(B) Past Performance Questionnaire

(C) Pricing Spreadsheet

(D) Terms and Conditions

� EMBED Word.Picture.8 ���

PAGE

_1106609519.doc