Attachment V- Addendum to Sections L and M.pdf

Attachment V- Addendum to Sections L and M

RFP 70Z02325R91240001

Instructions to Offerors

In accordance with FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Product or Commercial Services (SEP 2023) (incorporated by reference), Offerors must comply with all instructions contained herein.

1.0 Questions

Offerors may submit written questions during the quote preparation period. All questions must be received no later than 18 June 2025, 12:00 PM (Eastern) to allow adequate time to prepare and issue responses to all offerors prior to the date and times set for receipt of quotes. Only written questions will receive a response.

All questions and quotes shall be directed to Contract Specialist Yvonne Green at Yvonne.D.Green@uscg.mil and Contracting Officer Ms. Melony Y. Suber at Melony.Y.Suber@uscg.mil.

1.2 Proposal Due Date

The RFP is due no later than 25 June 2025 by 11:00 AM Eastern Time and shall be submitted by email to Yvonne.D.Green@uscg.mil and Melony.Y.Suber@uscg.mil. Please note this RFP shall not be considered direction to proceed with the subject effort, nor a promise of future direction to proceed. Offeror is solely responsible for any costs associated with the submission of a proposal.

1.3 Cover Letter

A cover letter (not to exceed one (1) page) shall be included for all submissions. The cover letter shall be included in Volume I and include the Offeror’s name and address; U.S. Coast Guard solicitation number; SAM Unique Entity ID; CAGE number; Offeror’s point of contact including their phone number and email address; the date the Offeror’s quote expires; and a statement acknowledging the Offeror’s understanding and compliance with the USCG PG-85-00-2210-A, Aeronautical Engineering Safe Work Practices Process Guide.

1.4 Format

• Minimum acceptable font size is no smaller than eleven (11) point and no smaller than ten (10) point for tables, charts, or graphs.

• Page size shall be letter size (8.5” x 11”); tables, charts, or graphs may be on legal size (8.5” x 14”).

• Proposal page limits for each volume are as follows:

• Volume I: Technical Approach — 10 pages maximum

• Volume II: Past Performance — 5 pages maximum

• Volume III: Price — No page limit specified

• Pages exceeding these limits may not be evaluated.

• It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure sufficient time is provided for electronic submissions to be processed.

• The contractor shall acknowledge the solicitation and all amendments thereto.

1.5 Submission Instructions

mailto:Yvonne.D.Green@uscg.mil mailto:Melony.Y.Suber@uscg.mil mailto:Yvonne.D.Green@uscg.mil mailto:Melony.Y.Suber@uscg.mil

An Offeror shall submit three (3) volumes as part of a proposal.

• Volume I: Technical Approach (Limit, 10 pages) The proposal should present a clear and comprehensive methodology for delivering the training specified in Section 3.0 of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). This methodology should demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and outline a feasible and complete plan for delivering the training effectively and on schedule.

Training Delivery Approach (Classroom and Hands-On Methods) The proposal should describe the methods it will use to deliver both classroom-based and hands-on training, indicating whether and how each approach will be applied to meet the required training objectives.

Descriptions of the classroom training should specify instructional formats such as lectures, multimedia presentations, or guided discussions. Descriptions of hands-on training should detail task-based exercises designed to simulate operational environments.

The proposal should explain how the proposed training delivery methods align with the outcomes defined in the PWS.

Additionally, the proposal should demonstrate compliance with the USCG PG-85-00-2210-A, Aeronautical Engineering Safe Work Practices Process Guide. This includes describing how safety protocols will be implemented and enforced, such as the use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), environmental controls, and instructor oversight. Particular emphasis should be placed on ensuring safety during military aircraft paint application, including identification of risk mitigation strategies and methods for ensuring regulatory compliance.

Course Content The proposal should include a detailed description of the course content, presented in a format similar to a course syllabus. This description should list the specific topics, modules, or lessons that will be covered during the training, aligned with the objectives outlined in Section 3.0 of the

PWS.

The proposal should also describe assessments or other means by which student comprehension and application of the material will be evaluated.

Compliance with AS7489 ACAS Level I Certification The proposal must demonstrate that the Offeror is an approved provider of SAE AS7489 ACAS Level 1 certification training by including:

• Documentation of current company and instructor credential status;

• Internal quality assurance processes that will ensure continued compliance with certification standards (i.e., processes such as audits, instructor certification tracking, and regular curriculum reviews, as applicable).

• Volume II: Past Performance (Limit, 5 pages)

Proposals shall include information describing up to three (3) recent and relevant contracts or project performed by the Offeror. Recent is defined as any effort performed or completed on or after June 1, 2022. Relevant means prior efforts that involved technical training related to aircraft coating, surface preparation, or paint application, preferably in regulated environments or with federal, state, or commercial clients.

For each prior effort, proposals shall include a summary of the past performance including the following:

1. Project name, contract and/or task order number

2. Contract dollar value and performance period. State the total awarded value of the contract or task order and start and end dates of the efforts.

3. Customer point of contact. Provide a current and accurate point of contact, including name, title, phone number, and email address.

4. Detailed description of work performed. Describe the nature of the services provided, including how the scope and complexity are similar to the requirements of this RFP.

5. Results achieved. Summarize the outcomes of the contract, with specific focus on results relevant to this requirement. Include a narrative explaining how the work aligns with the scope and complexity of this solicitation.

For reference efforts where no CPARS ratings exist, Offerors shall provide the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment III) to a cognizant official able to rate the prior performance. The client should return this document, electronically, directly to the email addresses indicated on that form. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure compliance with this request, USCG assumes no responsibility to reach out to points of contact for this information on behalf of any offeror.

• Volume III: Price Offerors should submit their best price proposal that reflects a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) approach for delivering the training services described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Pricing proposals must be completed using Attachment IV – Pricing Sheet, and should include the following:

1. Price Per Course Session: Provide a total fixed price for delivering one complete course session. Offerors shall provide a fixed price for course sessions for each of the option periods as indicated in Attachment IV.

Note: The Government anticipates issuing task orders based on operational needs, with no guaranteed minimum or maximum number of sessions per year. However, pricing should assume up to five (5) sessions annually for evaluation purposes.

2.0 Evaluation

In accordance with FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (NOV 2021), the government intends to award a Firm-Fixed Price IDIQ contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror, whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

2.1 Evaluation Factors

Factor 1 - Technical Approach The Government will evaluate the proposal to assess confidence in the Offeror’s understanding of and ability to meet the PWS requirements. The evaluation will consider the soundness, feasibility, and completeness of the proposal’s methodology for delivering both classroom and hands-on training.

The evaluation will focus on:

• Clarity, detail, and effectiveness of the proposed instructional methodology.

• Alignment of the proposed course content with the training objectives and requirements in Section 3.0 of the PWS.

• Demonstration of authorization or approval to provide SAE AS7489 ACAS Level 1 certification following training.

• Extent to which safety, environmental, and operational constraints are identified and mitigated in the proposed training environment. The evaluation will specifically consider the approach to complying with the USCG PG-85-00-2210-A Aeronautical Engineering Safe Work Practices Process Guide, particularly related to hands-on paint application and environmental and safety controls.

Confidence ratings will be assigned as follows:

High Confidence

The proposal demonstrates a clear, detailed, and feasible approach that shows full understanding of the PWS requirements. Documentation verifying authorization to issue SAE AS7489 ACAS Level 1 certification is included. Safety and regulatory compliance are addressed effectively, indicating minimal Government oversight will be needed.

Some Confidence

The proposal shows a sound approach and understanding of the PWS requirements. Documentation verifying authorization to issue SAE AS7489 ACAS Level 1 certification is included. Safety and regulatory compliance are addressed adequately, but indicates some Government involvement, such as periodic oversight, guidance, and occasional corrective actions, may be required to ensure full compliance and successful contract performance.

Low Confidence

The proposal lacks sufficient demonstration of understanding or ability to meet PWS requirements. Proposal fails to provide adequate documentation verifying authorization to issue SAE AS7489 ACAS Level 1 certification or insufficient safety protocol descriptions.

Proposals receiving this rating will be considered ineligible for award.

Factor 2 - Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance to determine a confidence rating based on the relevance, currency, and quality of the prior performance(s). Only past performance from the last three years or ongoing work will be considered. Offerors should provide relevant data, including points of contact (e.g., contract officers, project managers) and other sources, (e.g., Contractor Performance and Rating System (CPARS) or customer feedback received in PPQ forms) for evaluation. The government reserves the right to use any and all available information regarding the Offeror’s prior performances, whether or not referenced in the proposal.

If the Offeror has no relevant past performance, a neutral confidence rating will be assigned, which will neither help nor hurt the evaluation.

Factor 3 - Price

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s price proposal to assess reasonableness and completeness. Price will be the least important factor in the overall best value determination but will be considered in relation to the other evaluation factors.

The evaluation will include consideration of the following:

• Reasonableness: Whether the proposed pricing is fair and reasonable. The government will consider the price per class as well as a Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be equal to the amount of the estimated five classes per year over all potential option years.

• Completeness: Whether the Offeror has provided a complete price proposal that includes all required elements

3.0 Award Selection

The USCG will select the responsible Offeror whose proposal provides the best value to the Government using the trade-off process. The best value will be determined by evaluating the balance between Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Price.

While price is a factor, the Government may select a higher-priced proposal if the technical approach and past performance justify the additional price, resulting in the best value for the Government.

The evaluation factors will be weighted as follows:

1. Technical Approach (most important)

2. Past Performance

3. Price (least important)

In this evaluation, Technical Approach and Past Performance combined are more important than Price.

Proposals with a Low Confidence rating in Factor 1 (Technical Approach) will be ineligible for award. The Government will not consider proposals that fail to demonstrate an acceptable level of confidence in their technical approach.