CAP_Study_Combined_Synop_Sol_Final.docx

Combined Synopsis/Solicitation for Civil Air Patrol (CAP) Fleet Mix, Mission, and Modernization Study

Tyndall AFB, FL 32403

17 June 2019

-Performance Work Statement (PWS) dated 22 May 2019-

1. This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in FAR subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; quotes are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued.

2. The solicitation reference number is FA4819-19-Q-A019 and is hereby issued as a request for quotation (RFQ);

3. The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2019-02.

4. This acquisition is under with North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541990, All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services. The applicable small business size standard is $15,000,000.00. To be eligible for contract award offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM). Registration is accomplished via the SAM website at https://www.sam.gov/SAM

5. The following line item number(s) and items, quantities, and units of measure are applicable to this acquisition:

Pricing Table

6. Date(s) and place(s) of delivery and acceptance and FOB point are as follows:

1. Period of Performance: *Approximately* 1 Aug 2019 – 1 Feb 2020;

b. Places of Performance: Maxwell AFB, AL, Tyndall AFB, FL, Offeror’s Principal Business Address as propose, and other Temporary Duty (TDY) locations as necessary.

c. Inspection/Acceptance Terms: Destination/Destination

7. The provision at FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial, applies to this acquisition. Addendum to this provision is as follows:

Offeror shall complete, and include with its submission, the following:

a. Pricing Table located in paragraph 5 above (shall include unit and total price for CLINs 0001 and 0002)

b. Technical description of services being offered that provides sufficient detail for the government to evaluate compliance with the PWS requirements. At a minimum, the offeror shall identify the following;

1. Project Management and Staffing Approach (Technical Subfactor 1) that clearly demonstrates an understanding of the entire PWS and the special requirements for management and staffing (see PWS para. 1.7). Resumes of all personnel shall be provided under this subfactor.

2. Modernization Study Approach (Technical Subfactor 2) that clearly identifies the approach for accomplishing the modernization study specified in the PWS and the method for providing a recommendation that is thorough, innovative and feasible.

At a minimum, the offeror shall satisfactorily address the following three components within their Modernization Study Approach:

(i) Approach to the analysis and assessment requirements in accordance with PWS objectives (PWS para 1.4 in its entirety)

(ii) Provide an Example Technical Report and Briefing Slide deck (PWS para 1.5)

(iii) Ensure CAP Mission Statement is tied into proposal’s key elements (PWS para 1.4.4).

c. Past Performance Information (PPI)

1. The offeror shall provide past performance information for a maximum of three of the most recent and relevant contracts performed for any customer. Recency and Relevancy are defined in the addendum to FAR 52.212-2 below. Offerors shall identify the following information for each past performance information submittal:

i. Company/Division Name

ii. Service Description

iii. Contracting Agency/Customer

iv. Contract Number

v. Contract Dollar Value

vi. Percentage of Work performed (if acted as subcontractor)

vii. Period of Performance

viii. Verified, up-to-date name, mailing and email address, and telephone number of the Contracting Officer POC

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

x. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and identify aspects (scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity) of the contracts deemed relevant and how they relate to the proposed effort

xi. If an offeror has no recent and/or relevant past performance history, the offeror must state affirmatively that it doesn’t not possess past performance history of recency or relevance, as applicable.

9. The provision at FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation -- Commercial Items, applies to this acquisition, addendum to this provision is as follows:

a. In accordance with FAR 52.212-2(a), the Government will award a 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:

1. Technical

2. Price

3. Past Performance

Technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

b. The evaluation process will proceed as follows:

1. Evaluate all offers for technical acceptability and assign ratings as described herein.

2. Evaluate past performance information (PPI) to determine performance confidence. PPI submitted by the offeror, as well as data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources, will be utilized as described herein.

3. Competitive price evaluation of all offers. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s total evaluated price (TEP), which includes the sum of the offeror’s proposed pricing for CLINS 0001 and 0002.

c. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each offer:

1. Factor 1: Technical

i. Subfactor 1: Project Management and Staffing Approach

ii. Subfactor 2: Modernization Study Approach

2. Factor 2: Past Performance

3. Factor 3: Price

d. Factor 1: Technical

1. The government will evaluate the offeror’s technical approach on a pass/fail basis and assign an Acceptable/Unacceptable rating at the subfactor level as shown in Table 1 below. To be eligible for award, offerors are required to receive an “Acceptable” rating for each technical subfactor. If one subfactor is determined unacceptable, the entire proposal will be determined technically unacceptable and ineligible for award. Offeror’s are cautioned that exceeding the technical evaluation criteria will not result in receiving a higher rating.

Table 1 – Technical Rating

2. The offeror’s proposed technical approach will be evaluated against the following subfactors;

i. Technical Subfactor 1: Project Management and Staffing Approach

An Offeror’s Project Management and Staffing Approach will be determined acceptable if it clearly demonstrates an understanding of the PWS and the special requirements for management and staffing (PWS para. 1.7). Additionally, resumes for all personnel shall be provided for technical subfactor 1 to be determined acceptable.

ii. Technical Subfactor 2: Modernization Study Approach

An offeror’s modernization study approach will be determined acceptable if it demonstrates a satisfactory approach to how the requirements outlined in the PWS will be accomplished and how a recommendation based on the study will be provided that is thorough, innovative and feasible.

Additionally, the Modernization Study Approach (Technical Subfactor 2) will be determined acceptable if it clearly and sufficiently addresses each of the following three components;

(1) Approach to analysis and assessment in accordance with Objectives (PWS para 1.4 in its entirety)

(2) Example Technical Report and Briefing Slide deck (PWS para 1.5)

(3) Ensure CAP Mission Statement is tied into proposal’s key elements (PWS para 1.4.4).

Each component within Technical Subfactor 2 will receive either an acceptable or unacceptable rating described above in Table 1. The technical rating will be based on how well offeror's proposed approach addresses the critical components listed above. Failure to satisfactorily address any one of the three critical components will result in an unacceptable rating for Subfactor 2.

e. Factor 2: Past Performance The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s ability to meet the contract performance requirements. The past performance evaluation will consider all recent and relevant past performance information received and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate it into a performance confidence assessment rating in accordance with the table below.

1. Past Performance Information – The Government will evaluate past performance information submitted by the offeror that conforms to the requirements identified in the addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors referenced above. The Government has imposed a submission limit of no more than 3 current/previous contract efforts.

2. The Government may also evaluate past performance information from the following sources:

i. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs)

ii. Government Databases: Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS)

iii. Any other data independently obtained by the government

3. Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last 3 years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation. Recency will be evaluated on a “meets” or “does not meet” basis.

4. Relevancy relates to performance aspects for services similar in scope, magnitude (dollar value), and complexity. The government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 2 below.

Table 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Past Performance Relevancy Rating

5. Quality: For each of the past performance information reviewed, the performance quality of work will be assessed based on any of the following: (i) the evaluation ratings in the Federal Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and FAPIIS if available, (ii) any data independently obtained by the government.

6. Confidence Assessment: The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of Confidence the government has in the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. As a result of the recency, relevancy and performance quality assessments, offerors will receive an integrated past performance confidence assessment rating as described in Table 3 below:

Table 3 - Confidence Assessment Rating

6. Neutral Confidence: In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” Although the evaluation team may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the DA may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff.

7. Integrated Assessment: In order to be considered for award, the offeror’s technical proposal must be rated as “Acceptable.” The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest price offer if it determines that the difference in the Past Performance Confidence Rating of another offeror justifies the higher price premium. Likewise, the government reserves the right to award to an offeror with other than “substantial confidence” rating if the cost of that offeror exceeds the benefit of the higher confidence rating. In that event, the government will make an integrated assessment best value award decision comparing the TEP and the Past Performance Confidence Rating.

10. Offerors are advised to include a completed copy of the provision at FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications -- Commercial Items, with its offer if the Offeror has not completed the annual representations and certification electronically in the System for Award Management accessed through https://www.sam.gov.

11. The clause at FAR 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions -- Commercial Items, applies to this acquisition.

12. The clause at FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders -- Commercial Items, applies to this acquisition.

a. The Contractor shall comply with the FAR clauses in this paragraph that the Contracting Officer has indicated as being incorporated in this contract by reference to implement provisions of law or Executive orders applicable to acquisitions of commercial items:

PROVISIONS AND CLAUSES

* See Attachment 2 - Provisions and Clauses.

13. Additional contract requirement(s) and terms and conditions determined by the contracting officer to be necessary for this acquisition and consistent with customary commercial practices are as follows:

a. Applicable Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses and its supplements will be incorporated into the resultant contract;

b. Attachment 1, Performance Work Statement dated 22 May 2019; and

c. DFARS clause 252.232-7006 Wide Area Work Flow Payment Instructions

14. The Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) does not apply to this acquisition.

15. Date, time and place offers are due:

a. Date/Time: No later than 1:00 PM Central Standard Time, 18 July 2019; and

b. Place: E-mail to justin.powell.7@us.af.mil; rebecca.natal.1@us.af.mil

16. Points of Contact:

a. Contract Specialist SSgt Justin Powell – justin.powell.7@us.af.mil ; and

b. Contracting Officer Rebecca Natal – rebecca.natal.1@us.af.mil; (850) 283-3628.