FAR 52.212-2 Addendum N66604-20-Q-0343.pdf

RFQ #: N66604-20-Q-0343

FAR Provision 52.212-2 Addendum

Attachment 4

QUOTE SUBMISSION

1.0 Offerors must respond to all requirements of the solicitation document. Submit quotes electronically, including attachments, via email to levi.andrews@navy.mil.

1.1 Quote Format

1.1.1 The quote shall be submitted in the English language. The narrative material in the quote shall be prepared in no smaller than 10 point font, single-spaced, with no less than a one inch margin on all sides. In the event photo reduction is used for tables, charts, and drawings, their presentation must be clear and legible. No pictures or hyperlinks are allowed.

1.1.2 Quotes and all attachments shall be readable by Microsoft Office or Adobe Acrobat.

1.1.3 Quotes shall include a statement that it is valid through 45 days from the date specified for receipt of quotes.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1 General Information

The Government intends to make a single award as a result of this Request For Quotation (RFQ).

Award will be made to the responsible offeror meeting all requirements of the solicitation and whose quote contains the combination of those factors offering the best overall value to the Government. The best overall value to the Government will be determined by comparing the difference in value of technical (non-price) features of quotes with the difference in the price to the Government.

2.0 PRICE

The Government will evaluate quoted prices by performing price analysis on the Base year and four (4) one-year Options in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b).

3.0 NON-PRICE FACTORS

The Government will perform an evaluation of the non-price factors including Technical Capability and Past Performance. The offeror must provide information in sufficient detail to allow the Government to make a best value assessment of the offeror’s capability to support the response to the evaluation factors. The quote shall be detailed and clearly stated to allow an assessment by the Government without the need for additional information.

3.1 Technical Capability

RFQ #: N66604-20-Q-0343FAR Provision 52.212-2 Addendum

3.1.1 Technical Approach/Hypothetical Scenarios: The scenarios identified below represent three separate opportunities to demonstrate the Offeror’s technical approach to performing the sample tasks. The Offeror shall provide a detailed approach to handle each sample task addressing its understanding of the issue(s) presented and the requirement(s) for completion. Please describe how you would handle each scenario, starting with the communications of the requirement with the Technical Point of Contact (POC), planning, delivery and invoicing for payment. The areas of emphasis are planning, facilitation, delivery and acceptance.

Scenario 1: NUWC Division Newport Technical POC contacts you and provides a DD Form 1149 requesting a quote to import one 40’ container that consists of a main sea water pump containing motor oil and weighing 8,000 pounds. This container is located at the Naval Submarine Facility in Santa Rita, Guam and needs to be delivered to Naval Station Newport, 47 Chandler Street, Newport, RI.

The Technical POC approves the estimated quote for your company to handle the import, arrange shipping and delivery to the address above. Please identify all the necessary steps in facilitating this requirement.

Scenario 2: A customs storage facility contacts you regarding a package that is marked for NUWC Division Newport (customer) referencing an Air Way Bill number received at JFK International Airport. After contacting the Technical POC, the package referenced above is identified as CLASSIFIED.

The Technical POC approves the estimated quote for your company to clear customs and deliver the package to Naval Station Newport, 47 Chandler Street, Newport, RI. Please identify all the necessary steps in facilitating this requirement.

Scenario 3: NUWC Division Newport Technical POC contacts you and provides the DD Form 1149s requesting quotes to export/import two (2) pelican cases consisting of military hardware to support testing operations. The pelican cases need to be picked up at Naval Station Newport, 47 Chandler Street, Newport, RI and delivered to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Two days after delivery of the pelican cases to Brazil, the military hardware is ready for return to Naval Station Newport, 47 Chandler Street, Newport, RI.

The Technical POC approves the estimated quotes for your company to handle the export/import and shipping to/from the above addresses. Please identify all the necessary steps in facilitating this requirement.

3.1.2 Technical Capability Ratings: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Rating Description Outstanding Quote meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Quote meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Quote contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Quote meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Quote does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The quote has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Quote does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Quote is unawardable.

3.1.3 Definitions

Weakness is defined as a flaw in the quote that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness in the quote is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

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. See FAR 15.001.

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 approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, 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 quote that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

3.2 Past Performance

3.2.1 Past performance will be evaluated as an indicator of the offeror’s expected future performance. The offeror shall submit up to three (3) recent (within the last 3 years of Request for Quote Closing date) past performance references, if available, which reflect recent past performance relevant to the requirements of this solicitation including similar services provided to federal, state, or local Governments, as well as commercial customers (one (1) page limit per past performance reference).

The past performance references should reflect relevant experience demonstrating the ability to handle the scope and breadth of the tasking in the Statement of Work. Include the following information for each past performance reference:

• Contract Number/Title

• Date of Award and Period of Performance

• Name of contracting activity or commercial firm

• Contract type

• Total contract value

• Brief narrative (less than 20 lines) describing your involvement in the effort, complexity, objectives achieved, and types of personnel who performed under the contract. List ships or military systems involved, if any. List major subcontractors, if any.

• Procuring Contracting Officer* and telephone and email address

• Government Program Manager* or Contracting Officer’s Representative, *Or non-Government official with similar duties or rank; provide telephone and email address for POCs.

3.2.2 The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror's past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant are unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration is given to those aspects of an offeror's contract history that give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement.

Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

There are four levels of relevancy as shown below. 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.

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 little or none 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 second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror's past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

The Contracting Officer will consider all available information concerning the offeror’s past performance whether contained in the quote or not. This may include information furnished by points of contact not named in the quote or information from other sources such as commercial rating services. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation are as follows:

Past performance information may be provided by the offeror, as solicited.

Past performance information may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition. Past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

The evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in shown below:

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.

RFQ #:

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 Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.

(Reference FAR 15.305(a)(2) for information on assigning an unknown/neutral confidence rating).

3.2.3 Definitions

Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. For this requirement, recent past performance references are those currently in process or those that were completed within three (3) years of this solicitation closing date.

Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

3.3 Pass or Fail

3.3.1 The Offeror shall submit the following information with its proposal with its proposal which will be evaluated as a pass or fail in relation to the solicitation requirements.

(1) Customs Broker License – The Offeror shall submit a copy of a valid custom broker’s license issued by either the US Department of Treasury or US Customs and Border Patrol.

4.0 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

Technical Capability and Past Performance are essentially equal in importance. When combined, Technical Capability and Past Performance are significantly more important than Price. However, price is important and will be seriously considered. The importance of price will increase with the degree of equality of the offerors in relation to the non-price factors, or when it is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the other factors to the Government.

5.0 OPTIONS

RFQ #:

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

6.0 AWARD AND ACCEPTANCE

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

3.0 NON-PRICE FACTORS