Attachment_1_-_Instructions_and_Evaluation_Factors.docx

Attachment 1

INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

Advanced Intedgrated Weapons Shooting and Tactical Combat Skills Training

F1MTCC6011AW01

EVALUATION CRITERIA - BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

A. The Government anticipates awarding a contract to the offeror whose proposal provides the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered, and award may be made to other than the lowest priced proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals based on the following factors:

(1) Technical A. Lesson Plan

(2) Price

(3) Past Performance

FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL:

Initially, the government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The only sub factors proposals shall be evaluated against are the following:

Sub Factor 1 – Lesson Plan: IAW the Performance Work Statement, paragraph 4, the contractor shall provide a Lesson Plan that covers all of the training elements required by the following regulations: (SH 21-76, AFM 31-28, AFM 7-8 and ATTP 3-06.11).

Lesson Plan Instructions: Contractors shall submit lesson plans that cover the required training objectives. Lesson plans should be submitted in an outline format. The required objectives that should be covered include the following:

1. Weapon training for M9 and M4 service weapon progression from basic handling and marksmanship skills to advanced shooting drills and mastering the art of integrated weapons shooting in a battle focused environment. As an example, training shall include over barricade, side barricade, offensive and defensive shooting postures, and multi-target ingagement.

2. Advanced live night fire training with M9 and M4 service weapons that incorporates AN/PVS-14 Monocular Night Vision Device (MNVD), AN/PEQ-2 Infrared Target Pointer/ Illuminator/ Aiming Laser (ITPIAL), and handheld/weapon mounted flashlights with advanced firearms skills.

3. Night and day Close Quarters Battle (CQB) training course with TWO-Man and FOUR-man room clearing, multi-team multi-structure CQB to include: Hallways and stairwells.

4. Utilizing 25-300m pop-up range for day/night rifle firing with details on how to increase a member’s accuracy at a distnace.

5. Instruction on CQB to show method of teaching and how M200 Blanks and UTM MMR will be utilized.

6. CQB and patroling lesson plans should reflect what is presented in ATTP 3-06.11 Combined Operations in Urban Terrain.

7. Hand Held radio implementation.

8. Tactical Combat Casualty Care training.

9. Weapons Safety.

FACTOR 2 – PRICE:

(1) Next, the government shall rank all technically acceptable offers by price. For the purpose of selecting the successful offeror, Past Performance is considered significantly more important than Price. Price will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, and realism.

(2) The cost for travel (include pricing for per diem, air fare, rental car, etc.) and other direct costs associated with day to day operations should be included in the Quotation and will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness.

(3) Proposed total and unit prices will be evaluated to determine if prices are unreasonably high or low in relation to the government’s independent price estimate.

FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE:

Beginning with the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror, the contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on offerors based on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources.

1. Recent performance includes projects performed within the past three years. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving Tactical Weapons Training and Close Quarters Battle that involved similar scope, magnitude, and complexities required by the PWS.

Very Relevant - Present/past performance effort involved a higher magnitude of effort and complexities, in terms of combat skills training provided and number of students trained, in comparison to this solicitation requires.

Relevant - Present/past performance effort involved the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant - Present/past performance effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant - Present/past performance did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance.

The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined below. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral).

Table A-2, Performance confidence Assessments

2. Each Offeror shall furnish a list of no more than five references of “recent” and “relevant” projects that have occurred. The following information for each contract referenced:

(i) Company/Division name

(ii) Service Provided

(iii) Contracting Agency/Customer

(iv) Contract Number

(v) Contract Dollar Value

(vi) Period of Performance

(vii) Verified, up-to-date name, address, FAX, email and telephone number of the contracting officer

(viii) Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

(ix) Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

Information Regarding Submission of Past Performance Questionnaires: Offeror’s references should be instructed to complete the past performance questionnaire and send responses directly to the individual listed below no later than 4:00 PM EST, 10 Feb 2016. Questionnaires can be faxed, e-mailed or mailed to A1C Joshua Nardone at 843-963-5183 (fax) or joshua.nardone.2@us.af.mil or mailed to: 628 CONS/LGCA Attention: A1C Joshua Nardone 101 E. Hill Blvd, JB CHS, SC 29404.

In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.