CLB TC Follow-on Sections L and M Synopsis.pdf

SECTION L - INSTRUCTION, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1.0 ELIGIBILITY

This solicitation is unrestricted. Offerors who are other than Small Business are required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9. If a Subcontracting Plan is required, the offeror shall complete the Subcontracting Plan Cover Sheet (Attachment 3) and provide it with the Subcontracting Plan.

1.1 QUESTIONS

It is the Offeror's responsibility to bring to the attention of the Contracting Officer any ambiguities, discrepancies, inconsistencies, or conflicts between the SOW and other solicitation documents attached hereto or incorporated by reference. All questions shall be submitted via e-mail to abeer.j.ameer.civ@us.navy.mil and sam.a.keith.civ@us.navy.mil in accordance with L-215-H007 Submission of Questions by Offerors – Alternate I

(NAVSEA)(NOV 2021).

2.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF OFFERS

Offeror shall comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposal. Proposals shall be clear and unambiguous. Proposals that do not comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposal may render the Offeror ineligible for award. Information requested and submitted in one volume will not be considered for purposes of evaluation of information contained in another volume. Cost/price proposal submissions must reflect what is submitted in the technical volume. Proposals for which the cost elements (e.g., number of hours, labor categories, subcontractors) in the cost/price volume do not match those identified in the technical volume may be deemed ineligible for award. The Government reserves the right to reject any proposal that does not comply with these proposal submission instructions.

2.1 General

(a) Definitions. As used in this solicitation –

i. “In writing” or “written” means any worded or numbered expression that can be read, reproduced, and later communicated, and includes electronically transmitted and stored information.

ii. Proposal modification is a change made to a proposal before the solicitation’s closing date and time, made in response to an amendment, or made to correct a mistake at any time before award.

iii. Proposal revision is a change to a proposal made after the solicitation closing date, at the request of or as allowed by a Contracting Officer, as the result of negotiations.

iv. “Day” is defined as a calendar day unless otherwise specified. If the last day of a specified period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal Holiday, the period shall be deemed to end on the next Federal workday.

v. “Major Subcontractor” is defined in DFARS 209.571-1.

(b) Amendments to the solicitation. If this solicitation is amended, terms and conditions that are not amended remain unchanged. Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment to this solicitation by the date and time specified in the amendment(s). The Offeror shall demonstrate that the proposal is in response to the latest amendment.

mailto:_______abeer.j.ameer.civ@us.navy.mil mailto:__________sam.a.keith.civ@us.navy.mil

2.2 Electronic Submission

Offeror shall submit all volumes of its proposal electronically through the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module at https://piee.eb.mil before the solicitation closing date and time.

Proposals submitted by mail or hand-carried will not be evaluated. Proposals sent through proprietary or third-party File Transfer Protocol (FTP) sites or DoD SAFE will not be retrieved.

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to confirm receipt of proposals. For instructions on using the PIEE Solicitation Module, please refer to the PIEE Solicitation Module Instructions at https://dodprocurementtoolbox.com/cms/sites/default/files/resources/2023- 02/Vendor%20Solicitation%20Module%20Instructions.pdf and the resources included therein.

Proposal submissions, modifications, revisions, and withdrawals shall be submitted using the PIEE Solicitation Module before the closing date and time. Offeror may submit modifications to its proposal at any time before the solicitation closing date and time. Proposals received after the exact date and time specified for receipt shall be treated as late submissions and will not be considered except under facts and circumstances allowed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

2.3 Proposal Format

In order to maximize efficiency and minimize the time for proposal evaluation, all Offerors shall submit their proposals in accordance with the format and content specified below. The requirements below apply equally to subcontractors. Proposals that do not meet the below requirements may be deemed unresponsive and may be deemed ineligible for award.

• All files shall be in Microsoft Word (.docx), Excel (.xlsx), PowerPoint (.pptx), or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) file formats.

• All .pdf files shall be searchable when reviewed electronically.

• All Excel files, including workbooks and worksheets, submitted by the Offeror and all proposed subcontractors shall include all formulas, functions, macros, computations, and equations used to compute the proposed amounts. The Government MUST be able to determine how all direct and indirect rates are calculated. Do NOT “hard enter” data where formulas were used to calculate the entered value.

• There shall be no cell references or links to data or files not included in the Technical and Management volume and Cost/Proposal volume submissions, as appropriate.

• All rows, columns, cells, and worksheets shall be visible (e.g., object.visible=true) for all workbooks and all worksheets.

• Excel worksheet rows and columns set at zero height and./or zero width are not acceptable.

• No hyperlinks.

• Proposals shall be in English and in U.S. dollars.

The electronic proposal shall be prepared so that if printed, the proposal meets the following format requirements:

• 8.5 x 11-inch paper.

• Single-spaced typed lines.

• 1-inch margins.

• Font text shall be 12-point Times New Roman, except for:

o Graphs, graphics, tables, or charts used to supplement the proposal text shall use Times New Roman that is no smaller than 9-point font size.

https://piee.eb.mil/ https://dodprocurementtoolbox.com/cms/sites/default/files/resources/2023-02/Vendor%20Solicitation%20Module%20Instructions.pdf https://dodprocurementtoolbox.com/cms/sites/default/files/resources/2023-02/Vendor%20Solicitation%20Module%20Instructions.pdf o Microsoft Office Excel spreadsheets shall use Times New Roman that is no smaller than 9-point font size. These Excel spreadsheets shall be formatted for printing in landscape orientation such that all row and column headings appear on each printed page.

• No hyperlinks.

(a) Cover Page and Table of Contents

Offeror shall include a cover page and table of contents for each proposal volume. The cover page shall include the information required in FAR 52.215-1. The cover page and table of contents will not count against page limitations.

(b) Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Offer shall include a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms for each proposal volume that provides corresponding definitions. Glossaries will not count against page limitations.

(c) Page Numbering System

Offeror shall use a standard page numbering system to facilitate proposal references. All pages shall be numbered consecutively for each section within a volume. Charts, graphs, and other inserted materials shall be included in the page numbering system.

(d) Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data

Offerors that include in their proposals data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall mark the title page with the following legend:

"This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in part for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If, however, a contract is awarded to this Offeror as a result of, or in connection with, the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting contract. This restriction does not limit the Government’s right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [FILL-IN]";

Offerors shall also mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend:

"Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal."

(e) File Naming Convention

All proposal files shall include the Offeror's company name, volume #, document name, and other useful identifying information. For example:

• Company_Volume_I _Technical Approach

• Company_Volume_I_Key Personnel Resume for Jane Doe

• Company_Volume_II _Past Performance Reference for N00024-##-X-####

• Company_Volume_III _Cost Proposal Narrative

• Company_Volume_IV_Cover Letter

3.0 Proposal Organization and Content

Offeror shall organize its proposal and include all proposal content exactly as described herein. Offeror shall organize its proposal into separate volumes and adhere to page limitations as delineated in the Proposal Organization Table below. Page limitations will be treated as maximums. If exceeded, excess pages may not be read or considered in proposal evaluation. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages.

Proposal Organization Table Volume Proposal Content Page Limitation

VOLUME I -

Technical Capabilities (Factor 1)

Volume I – Technical Capabilities 50 pages

VOLUME II - Past Performance (Factor 3)

Past Performance References

3 pages per reference

Volume III - Cost Proposal (Factor 2)

Cost Proposal Spreadsheet Cost Proposal Narrative

No page limit.

VOLUME IV - Contract Documentation (Factor 4)

Cover letter Solicitation Fill-ins Small Business Pre-Award Survey (SF1408) Security Requirements (DD 254)

No page limit.

3.1 Volume I – Technical (Factor 1)

Offerors are to ensure that all information pertaining to Factor 1, Technical Capabilities, is contained within VOLUME I and that no cost/price information is included in this volume.

The Offeror shall demonstrate specific knowledge, capability, experience and approach (both Prime and Subcontractors) to perform all aspects of the requirements listed in the Section C - SOW The Offeror shall demonstrate its ability to support the requirements described in the SOW and its understanding of the interdependencies/interrelationships of the CLINS. The Offeror shall demonstrate its ability to maintain schedule and quality of the deliverables. The Offeror shall also describe how its facilities meet the requirements in the SOW.

The Offeror shall demonstrate its specific capabilities and approach (both Prime and Subcontractors) to perform, at a minimum, the following tasks in accordance with the SOW. At a minimum the Offeror’s response shall include the following:

a) The Offeror shall define their proposed strategy and methods for manufacturing the Tailcone Kit components in accordance with their respective requirements. This strategy includes, but is not limited to:

i. Machining/inspection and fixturing/setup concept(s)

ii. Manufacturing processes for each sub-component of the Tailcone

iii. Machining equipment and process(es), including planned: cutter geometries, speeds and feeds, and finish machining cusp heights

iv. Composite material manufacturing processes and equipment

v. Syntactic foam manufacturing processes and equipment

vi. Final dimensional inspection equipment and process(es)

vii. Balancing equipment, including dimensions, type (i.e. static or dynamic) and processes/procedures to address notes of reference (a).

b) The Offeror shall describe prior experience with the manufacturing strategy and/or methods proposed for use in manufacturing the Tailcone Kit, via production of similar components or via prototyping efforts as well as its capabilities to meet all qualification requirements within the requisite drawings and specifications.

c) The Offeror shall describe the facilities and equipment to be utilized to execute the manufacturing strategy. The Offeror shall demonstrate that it possesses the facilities, equipment, and proper personnel required in the requisite drawing and other specifications. Additionally, the Offeror shall demonstrate it has the security clearances via DD 254 at time of proposal.

d) The Offeror shall describe the supply chain necessary to execute the manufacturing strategy and demonstrate that material availability is established and stable. Any hurdles to material availability shall be identified in the Offeror’s proposal.

e) The Offeror shall identify specific perceived production risks and describe their plans to mitigate those risks in execution.

f) The Offeror shall describe the process in which hardware will be transported between facilities if the complete scope of work will not be completed within the same facility.

g) The Offeror shall describe their quality assurance program per ISO 9001:2008 or AS9100. If the

Offeror utilizes an alternate quality assurance system, the Offeror shall specify the quality system they wish to use in the proposal.

h) The Offeror shall provide a statement of compliance with the remaining portions of the SOW listed in Section C of this solicitation.

i) The Offeror may provide any additional information above and beyond what is requested in paragraphs (a) through (h) necessary to support its assertion that it can perform the requirements as defined in the SOW.

3.2 Volume II – Past Performance (Factor 3)

Offeror shall provide all past performance information in accordance with Attachment X – Past Performance Reference. Offeror shall provide three past performance references, if available, which shall reflect recent experience performed within the last five years of the solicitation release date and that demonstrates experience relevant to the solicitation’s PWS/SOW. In addition to these three past performance references, Offeror shall submit one additional past performance reference for each subcontractor proposed to perform more than 10% of the total labor hours, if available. Offeror shall describe how the past performance references are relevant including details about how it is similar in scope and complexity to this solicitation’s SOW/PWS.

3.3 Volume III – Cost Proposal (Factor )

3.3.1 Section B Pricing

Offerors shall ensure that all cost/price information is contained within Volume III and Section B, as applicable. In addition, ensure that Section B pricing matches the Prime Offeror Cost Summary. The Section B pricing will take precedence should there be any discrepancies with any other pricing information submitted. As such, the resulting award will be made to the successful Offeror using their proposed Section B pricing.

3.3.2 Cost Proposal Spreadsheet (Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee CLINs only):

Offeror and their subcontractors shall each separately submit a cost proposal spreadsheet using the prime contractor’s format. The cost proposal spreadsheet shall provide a detailed breakout of every single cost element proposed across each base and option year as applicable. The cost proposal spreadsheet shall include calculations in the cells showing all formulas used to calculate the values. Do not enter hard data where formulas were used to calculate the entered value.

The Offeror’s cost proposal spreadsheet shall be overarching, encompassing all proposed costs inclusive of sanitized subcontractor costs, and it shall fully align with and support the proposed Section B pricing. Subcontractor’s unsanitized cost proposal spreadsheets shall be submitted separately using the prime contractor’s format via the PIEE Solicitation Module or Email in order to protect their proprietary information. Subcontractor cost proposals shall be received by the time and date specified for receipt of proposals specified in this solicitation.

3.3.3 Cost Proposal Narrative

Offeror shall provide a cost proposal narrative that fully substantiates the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs. The cost proposal narrative shall fully align with and support the proposed Section B pricing. The cost proposal narrative shall fully corroborate every cost element that is proposed and explain how the proposed pricing aligns with the funding schedule provided in DFARS 252.232-7007. Providing insufficient information to substantiate the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs may result in the identification of a risk, an upward cost adjustment, and/or in the offer no longer being considered eligible for award.

Offeror shall propose realistic costs within its proposal. Offeror bears the sole responsibility to demonstrate that its proposed costs are realistic within its proposal. Offeror is advised that proposing unrealistically lower costs without substantial justification will be an indication that the Offeror does not have a clear understanding of the requirements or does not have the requisite capability to support the effort. Any inconsistency between promised performance in the technical proposal (e.g., Volume 1 – Technical) and the proposed cost must be explained in the proposal. Any inconsistency, if unexplained, may raise a fundamental question of the Offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of the work required and may adversely impact the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal.

The cost proposal narrative shall address:

Subcontractors. Offeror shall describe the contract type proposed for each subcontractor and rationale for why the chosen contract type is most appropriate. In particular, Offeror shall demonstrate the suitability of any fixed price contract types (e.g., FFP, FFP LOE, etc.) and describe how fixed rates and/or fixed prices will be billed to the Government throughout the performance of this requirement. Offeror shall demonstrate that their subcontractors have the necessary business systems to perform the contract types being proposed. Offeror shall conduct appropriate cost or price analysis to establish the reasonableness of the proposed subcontract prices and include the results of these analyses within its cost proposal narrative, in accordance with FAR 15.404-3(b).

All subcontractors shall submit cost proposal narratives in order to fully substantiate the reasonableness and realism of their proposed costs. Subcontractors that are proposed on cost reimbursement basis shall provide the same level of information as required from the Offeror to substantiate their own costs within their cost proposal narratives.

Subcontractors that are proposed on a fixed price basis (e.g., FFP, FFP LOE, etc.) are not required to provide the same level details as required under cost reimbursable proposals but shall still provide an itemized breakout of fixed prices that is customary with the contract type proposed. Subcontractor unsanitized cost proposal narratives shall be submitted separately in order to protect their proprietary information. Subcontractor cost proposals shall be received by the time and date specified for receipt of proposals specified in this solicitation.

Labor hours. Offeror shall propose the labor hours exactly as specified in Section B for CPFF CLINs and shall demonstrate overall adherence to the Section B labor hours. The labor hours shall include both the Offeror and subcontractor labor hours, if applicable.

Direct labor rates. Offeror and cost reimbursement subcontractors shall describe the basis of estimate for each direct labor rate proposed for CPFF CLINs and provide substantiating information that fully corroborates each direct labor rate proposed.

For each current employee named in the cost proposal spreadsheet, Offeror and cost reimbursement subcontractors shall provide a screenshot that captures pertinent information from the employer's payroll system, incurred within the last three months preceding release of this solicitation. Payroll screenshots shall not contain any personally identifiable information, such as, social security numbers, date and place of birth, etc. Cost proposal narratives shall fully explain all pertinent data on a screenshot. The Government must be able to derive the individual’s direct rate (both inclusive and exclusive of the impact of uncompensated overtime, if proposed) from the payroll screenshot.

Alternatively, Offeror and cost reimbursement subcontractors may provide payroll verification instead of payroll screenshots. Payroll verification shall consist of a form containing the named personnel, proposed labor category, direct labor rate, certification status (per labor category as required), description of current position, and a signed certification by an authorized representative of the company that the information contained in the form is correct and current within the last three months preceding release of this solicitation. This supporting direct labor rate information shall clearly map to individual direct labor rates included within the cost proposal spreadsheet.

For each contingent hire in the cost proposal spreadsheet, Offeror and cost reimbursement subcontractors shall clearly indicate named contingent hires and shall provide a signed letter of intent that explicitly lists the agreed upon annual salary for the named individual and the amount of uncompensated work required. The cost proposal narrative shall fully explain all pertinent data about the letter of intent. The Government must be able to derive the individual’s direct rate (both inclusive and exclusive of the impact of uncompensated overtime, if proposed) from the letter of intent information.

For any position for which no candidate has been identified by name, Offeror and cost reimbursement subcontractors shall provide payroll data for a comparable position and an analysis of how the proposed position is comparable to the position corresponding to the payroll data supplied.

Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) or Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR). If the Offeror or subcontractor has an FPRA or FPRR with DCAA/DCMA, the Offeror shall provide a copy with their proposal to support its rates for CPFF CLINs. The Offeror shall clearly explain any deviations from the FPRA or FPRR, including formulas for prorating indirect rates, if applicable. If not evident in the FPRA or FPRR, include contact information for the DCAA/DCMA office that executed the FPRA or FPRR. If the Offeror or major subcontractor does not have a FPRA or FPRR, the Offeror shall provide the incurred rates for each proposed indirect and general and administrative (G&A) pool for the prior three years, indicating the beginning and end dates for each FY. If the incurred rates are provided for the prior three years, the Offeror shall complete the following chart:

Rate Year Year Year Incurred Rate Estimated

Indirect Rate at Start of Year

Incurred Rate Estimated Indirect Rate at Start of Year

Incurred Rate Estimated Indirect Rate at Start of Year

Fringe

Overhead G&A Cost of Money

*Rate Column shall be modified based on the Offeror’s indirect rates.

This rate information shall reflect those of the Offeror's most recently completed FY even if the rates are considered preliminary and have not been submitted to DCAA for audit. The Offeror shall note whether the incurred rates have been audited by DCAA or any other independent organization, and shall specifically state which indirect rates have been finalized by DCAA/DCMA. Each Offeror shall provide a copy of the provisional billing rate letter from DCAA/DCMA for itself and shall ensure that the Government receives this information for any major subcontractors. The information shall be provided to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer, Each Offeror shall provide a narrative detailing the major cost drivers for proposed indirect rates that are lower than historical rates. If an Offeror, or any of its subcontractors, proposes to cap any of its indirect rates, it shall identify each capped rate and shall propose a legally binding and enforceable clause which shall be included in the resultant contract award. Any proposed clause shall include a process for verification by the Government.

Note: If an Offeror does not have three years’ worth of actual, incurred indirect data for any proposed indirect rate, the Offeror shall provide the required information dating from the origin of the company.

Indirect Rates. Offeror and cost reimbursement subcontractors shall describe its proposed indirect rates, basis of estimate, and calculation methodologies for CPFF CLINs. Offeror and cost reimbursement subcontractors shall provide the three most recent years of incurred actuals for each proposed indirect rate, any provisional billing rates available, also indicating the beginning and end dates for each fiscal year. This history shall include the most recently completed fiscal year even if the rates are considered preliminary and have not been submitted to DCAA for audit. The Offeror shall note whether the actual rates have been audited by DCAA or any other independent organization; specifically state which indirect rates have been finalized by DCAA/DCMA. If proposed rates are below historical rates, the cost narrative shall include an explanation along with supporting information to corroborate why the proposed indirect rates that are lower than historical rates. If a cap on any of the indirect rates is being proposed, the cost narrative shall identify each capped rate and shall propose legally binding verbiage, which can be included in the resultant task order award subject to Government acceptance.

Other Direct Costs (ODCs). Offeror shall propose ODCs in accordance with below table. The below table reflects Government estimated ODCs, which includes travel. The estimated ODCs do not account for any company specific burdens such as material handling or G&A. Offeror shall propose all applicable burdens in accordance with its disclosure statements.

Base Year Option Year 1 Option Year 2 Option Year 3 Option Year 4 ODCs $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000

3.4 VOLUME IV - CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION (Factor 4)

3.4.1. Cover Letter.

Offeror and subcontractors shall provide a cover letter with:

• Solicitation number.

• Company name, CAGE code, Unique Entity Identifier (UEI), address, e-mail address, and telephone number.

• A statement confirming agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item.

• A statement that the proposal is valid through [FILL-IN] calendar days from the date specified for receipt of proposals.

• Names, titles, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror's behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation.

• DCAA and DCMA office POC, including branch location, contact name, telephone number and e-mail address.

• Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent's authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office. The Offeror’s signature on their proposal indicates the company will meet all requirements of the SOW/PWS, without exception.

• Identify all enclosures being transmitted as part of the Offeror's proposal.

• If an Offeror believes no organizational conflict(s) of interest exists, an affirmative statement that no such conflict exists shall be included in the cover letter.

3.4.2 Solicitation Fill-ins.

Offeror shall complete all solicitation fill-ins using the latest amended solicitation version and provide a copy within Volume IV.

3.4.3 Small Business.

Proposals shall include a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) which demonstrates a realistic commitment (in terms of percentages of total contract dollars *) to achieving the Small Business Participation (SBP) goals set forth below. Offerors shall provide a SBPCD with sufficient information to demonstrate the tasks assigned to the selected Small Business subcontractors are meaningful to the overall success of the program in that: a) the type of tasks subcontracted to Small Business are of a technical nature and are not simply limited to administrative positions, and/or b) it reflects a portion of the key labor categories proposed. The approach shall address use of Small Business Concerns, Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns, Women-Owned Small Business Concerns, HubZone Small Business Concerns, Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns. If a prime is a Small Business Concern, it may submit its own participation toward achieving the objectives. This SBPCD shall be separate from Subcontracting Plan submitted pursuant to the clause at FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (only required for large business concerns). However, any differences between the two plans shall be explained in the proposal. The SBPCD will be reviewed by the Government’s Deputy of Small Business Programs.

*DO NOT INCLUDE COST INFORMATION IN SUBMITTALS FOR THIS SUBFACTOR.

All percentages are out of total contract dollars.

Requirement for Total Small Business (all categories of small business): [FILL-IN]%

Goals per Subcategory:

Small Disadvantaged Business 1%

Hub-Zone Small 3% Woman Owned Small Business 2% Service-Disabled Veteran 1% Veteran Owned Small 1%

Any proposed goal that is less than the goal stipulated herein shall be explained in the SBPCD.

The North American Industry Classification (NAICS) code applicable to this solicitation is 336611. Therefore, companies proposing as a subcontractor under this solicitation as a small business concern must have had an average number of employees over its three previous fiscal years that was less than 1,300 employees. The size standard certified to by the Offeror in its basic contract is valid for the base ordering period and duration of any resultant contract issued against this solicitation.

3.4.4 Pre-Award Survey of Prospective Contractor (SF1408).

Offeror and cost reimbursement subcontractors shall assert whether they have a DCAA-approved accounting system and provide the date it was approved. If the Offeror or any cost reimbursement subcontractors do not have an approved accounting system, then the offeror or its cost reimbursement subcontractor shall complete an SF1408 Pre- Award Survey. Offeror is solely responsible for verifying that subcontractors proposed on a cost reimbursement basis have either an approved accounting system or have submitted the SF1408 as part of the subcontractor’s proposal. An SF1408 does not need to be submitted for companies that already have an approved accounting system.

A copy of the SF1408 is available from the U.S. General Services Administration at https://www.gsa.gov/reference/forms/preaward-survey-of-prospective-contractor-accounting-system.

3.4.5 Security Requirements.

Security requirements associated with this effort have been identified in Attachment X – DD254. Offeror shall demonstrate the ability to meet the facility clearance and safeguarding capability requirements identified in the attached DD254. Describe the plan to implement the required security clearances and physical access requirements during the transition period so that service is not interrupted. If the Offeror does not currently possess the required facility clearance, the Offeror shall demonstrate the steps it will take to be granted the facility clearance in accordance with DoDM 5220.32 (or latest guidance), including a detailed schedule for attaining the required facility clearance.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 GENERAL

It is the intention of the Navy to award a mixed Fixed-Price-Incentive-Fee (FPIF) Firm Target and Cost-Plus-Fixed- Fee (CPPF) Term type award for one base year plus four one-year options.

Pursuant to FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract based upon initial proposal submissions without conducting discussions with Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from the cost/price and technical standpoints. However, in accordance with FAR 15.306, the Government may contact any or all or a limited number of Offerors with questions concerning their responses. Exchanges with Offerors after receipt of a proposal do not constitute a rejection or counteroffer by the Government.

The following terms and definitions will be used for proposal evaluations:

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.

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 element 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.

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

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

Significant Strength is an aspect of the 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.

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The award decision will be determined based on the Government’s evaluation of each Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation factors identified within this solicitation. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal demonstrates the best value to the Government based on the evaluation factors. 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. The Government shall determine best value using a tradeoff process. The comparison will trade off differences in technical capability based on the non-cost factors and total evaluated price. If one Offeror has both the better technical capability and the lower total evaluated price, then that Offeror will be the better value. If one Offeror has the better technical capability and a higher total evaluated price, the Government will decide whether the difference in technical capability is worth the difference in price. If it is determined that the difference in technical capability is worth the difference in price, then the more capable, higher-priced Offeror will be the better value. If not, then the less capable, lower-priced Offeror will be the better value.

3.0 Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors

The Government will evaluate each Offeror's proposal in accordance with the evaluation factors to determine the best value proposal. The evaluation factors represent key areas of importance to be considered in the source selection decision. The factors and associated elements have been chosen to support meaningful discrimination between competing proposals.

Factor

1. Technical

2. Cost Proposal

3. Past Performance

4. Contract Documentation

The relative importance of the evaluation factors is as follows. Factor 1 is significantly more important than Factor 2 . Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3. Factors 1 and 3, when combined, are more important than Factor 2.

The degree of importance of Factor 2 will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the non-cost factors on which selection is to be based, or when the evaluated cost delta between Offerors is so significant as to diminish the value of the superiority of the non-cost factors.

Factor 4 does not have any relative importance weighting since it is being evaluated on a pass/fail basis.

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor 1: Technical (Volume I)

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates specific understanding, capability to successfully perform the requirements, and the soundness of the proposed technical approach.

Adjectival Rating Description. The Government will assign an adjectival rating for Factor 1 in accordance with the below adjectival rating table. Elements will not be separately rated.

Adjectival Rating Description Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is ineligible for award, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Factor 3: Past Performance (Volume II)

The Government will evaluate the past performance references for recency, relevancy and quality of performance.

Recent performance includes efforts performed within the last five years of from solicitation release date. Relevant performance includes efforts that are of similar scope, complexity, and magnitude as identified in the SOW. Past performance references that reflect projects with a similar scope and complexity to efforts described in this solicitation will be considered to have greater importance in the evaluation of this factor. The Government will evaluate all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the assignment of a performance confidence assessment rating.

The Government reserves its right to collect and use information from sources other than those identified in the proposal to evaluate past performance. This may include, but not limited to, Federal, State, and local Government agencies, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Better Business Bureaus, published media and electronic databases, and/or personal knowledge. The Government may contact past or current customers to collect additional information for use in evaluating past performance. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact and to contact other references than those provided in the proposal. The Government reserves the right to not perform a past performance evaluation on any Offeror that is assigned an “Unacceptable” or “Marginal” adjectival rating under Factor 1 - Technical.

Adjectival Rating Description. The Government will assign adjectival ratings for Factor 2 in accordance with the following information. For recency, each past performance reference will be assigned a rating of “Recent” or “Not Recent” as determined by whether the effort was performed within the past five calendar years from solicitation release date. For relevancy, each past performance reference will be assigned a rating in accordance with the below table.

Adjectival Ratings Description Very Relevant Present/Past Performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires Relevant Present/Past Performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires Somewhat Relevant Present/Past Performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires Not Relevant Present/Past Performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into a performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; rather, an overall performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance 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. The Government will assign an overall performance confidence assessment ratings in accordance with the below table.

Adjectival Ratings Description 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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance

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 Confident 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

While “Neutral Confidence” ratings will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably, a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff.

Factor 2: Cost Proposal (Volume III)

The Government will perform a price analysis for FFP CLINs and cost realism analysis for CPFF CLINs of the proposal.

For FFP CLINs: The Government shall utilize FAR 15.404-1 to analyze the proposed unit prices for each CLIN.

After the unit prices are verified, the Government will calculate Total Evaluated Price (TEP) by adding together the total target prices for CLINs XXX-XXX.

For CPFF CLINs: The Government will evaluate the proposed cost elements to determine whether they are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the technical proposal (e.g. Volume 1 - Technical). The Government will determine the probable cost of performance by calculating the total evaluated cost for the entire cost proposal. The total evaluated cost is the sum of the realistic costs for all priced CLINs/SLINs. The total evaluated cost is determined by adjusting proposed costs to reflect more realistic levels based on the cost realism substantiating data, unless otherwise stated in Section L. The total evaluated cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government's best estimate of the cost of actual performance in contract execution. The total evaluated cost will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value.

The Government will evaluate whether the proposed costs are unrealistically low and the Government will make upward adjustments to those proposed costs that it determines in its judgement to be unrealistically low. The Government may also assign risk, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies to proposals that contain unrealistically low costs, unsupported costs, and/or costs inconsistent with the technical volume. The Government will not evaluate whether proposed cost elements are unreasonably high in a competitive against any unrealistic claims of cost environment since the fundamental purpose of cost realism analysis is to guard the Government savings.

The Government reserves the right to use information other than the information provided in the cost proposal in order to perform cost realism analysis and develop the total evaluated cost. This may include, but not limited to, information from DCMA or DCAA, independent government cost estimates, salary databases or websites, invoices, aggregated cost data, historical data, etc. The Government also reserves the right to limit or expand its evaluation of the cost proposal to include technical analysis, unbalanced pricing analysis, cost analysis, and/or price analysis using the methods authorized under FAR 15.404-1.

The Government reserves the right to limit cost realism analysis to only those Offerors that represent the most likely candidates for award and not make any cost realism adjustments to those Offeror's cost proposals that are high cost and have inferior adjectival ratings under Factor 1 – Technical or Factor 2 – Past Performance. The Government reserves the right to not perform a cost realism analysis on any proposal that is assigned an "Unacceptable" or “Marginal” adjectival rating under Factor 1 – Technical or a “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” rating under Factor 2 – Past Performance . The Government reserves the right to not perform cost realism analysis on subcontractor proposals that reflect less than 5% of the total labor hours. The Government reserves the right to not 5 perform cost realism analysis on subcontractor proposals that are proposed on a fixed priced basis (e.g., FFP, FFP LOE, etc.). The TEP for all CLINs (FFP and CPFF) will be calculated by combining the FFP TEP to the CPFF Total Evaluated Cost.

Factor 4 – Small Business Participation Commitment Document (Volume IV)

Ratings Description Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives

Factor 4: Contract Documentation (Volume IV)

The Government will evaluate the submitted contract documentation to ensure that all the required information has been provided and to verify compliance with all requirements. The Government will assign an adjectival rating of “pass” or “fail” indicating whether the requirements have been fully satisfied. If the Offeror has failed to meet any of the pass/fail requirements, the proposal is ineligible for award and will be eliminated from further consideration.

The Government may waive minor oversights and irregularities in the submitted contract documentation provided that they are considered immaterial in its judgment. The Government reserves the right to not evaluate other proposal volumes I-III (Factors 1-3) if Offeror is assigned a “fail” adjectival rating under Factor 4.