H92240-14-R-0005-0004.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

This amendment extends the due date and time of proposals to 13 MAR 2014 at 12:00 PM (PST), adds Quesitons and Answ ers received to date, and attacheds PWS, Version 4, 26 FEB 2014 w hich replaces any previous version of the PWS.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 21

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Feb-2014

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X H92240-14-R-0005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Feb-2014

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

27-Feb-2014

CODE

NAVAL SPECIAL WARFARE COMMAND

ATTN: LAURA PATTERSON

2000 TRIDENT WAY BLDG 624

SAN DIEGO CA 92155-5583

H92240 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

H92240-14-R-0005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 04 ALL Q&AS

Amendment 0004 attaches all the Q&As that have been received to date- including Q&As from Amendments 0001-0004. Earlier answers that were updated (#2 and #9) are labeled as Updated Answer and others that had “Answer Pending” now have answers provided.

Amendment 0001 Number Question Answer

1 Is this a follow-on requirement? If so, could you please provide the incumbent contract number for this opportunity?

If not, is this a new requirement?

This is a new requirement. There is no incumbent contract number.

2 PWS section 4.1 states that “Proposal shall include proposed training site(s) and proof of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance/analysis for the proposed site(s). If a vendor is proposing California State lands as training sites, will the state equivalent California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) certification be accepted?

Updated Answer:

If it is on Federal land in CA, BLM would have to have the NEPA Analysis. Thus, if the offeror is proposing BLM land, this is covered. If they are proposing private land or State land then they would need the CEQA certification.

The PWS is updated with the corrected wording.

3 PWS section 4.1 states “Training sites shall be within 250 miles of Coronado CA” Is this measured straight line from Coronado, by air flight, or by road miles from Coronado?

The 250 miles shall be measured via mapquest/googlemaps, or an equivalent mapping program, using car/driving road distances.

See the attached Version 2, 19 FEB 2014, PWS, this replaces the original version in its entirety.

4 The PWS section 7.0 states “No one else may be present on site during training COI’s besides NSW, Contractor, and BLM (Rangers if necessary)” BLM roads are open to the public and the contractor cannot legally prevent public access. How does the government view this issue?

The intent of this phrase is the following:

a) to communicate to the offeror that they are not allowed to invite anyone else to view the training (friends, acquaintances, press, etc.);

b) to inform the offeror that they are expected to intervene and prevent unauthorized individuals (“looky lews”) from lingering around training sites to the best of their ability; and

c) to let the offeror know that they should select training sites that are not overly populated to the best of their ability.

Primarily a) above. The Government has had problems with this in the past.

See the attached Version 2, 19 FEB 2014, PWS, this replaces the original version in its entirety

5 The Pricing Spreadsheet cells G129 and G166 and H193 appear to be in error. Will the government review and correct?

The Pricing spreadsheet Version 2, 19 FEB 2014, is attached and replaces the original version in its entirety. All offerors are required to this version for offer submission.

6 [On other solicitations for similar services];

solicitations [required] you to have proof of ownership or permission to conduct the training on the training location.

I did not see that on the [H92240-14-R- 0005] solicitation, could you send me a copy of that section for using lease land.

This is the requirement as stated in the PWS Section 4.1. If they can meet the requirement, then we will not consider them compliant.

“Training sites shall be within 250 miles of Coronado, CA and shall incorporate a minimum of 60,000 acres of drivable off-road terrain, to include sand, rocks, dirt, decomposed granite, and hills. Proposal shall include proposed training site(s) and proof of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance/analysis for the proposed site(s).”

Amendment 0002 Question#7 (Had to be separated out of the Q&A table because of the length.)

4.6.3 Training Vehicles.

In the second sentence the wording states: “vehicles that emulate the current SOCOM Program of record NSCV vehicles, which are Toyota Hilux and Toyota Land Cruiser”. This wording leaves quite a range of odd ball and/or old vehicles that could be used which would qualify under this wording. This could leave the training program using various vehicle brands and models that have little to do with the actual Toyota vehicles that the military would own and be operating. By requiring a right hand drive vehicle along with diesel powered vehicles you could be aligning yourself with newer out of country vehicles that are usually mandated to having limited usage time in the USA of one year. These out of country vehicles would also have issues of readily available replacement parts in the USA.

Delays in parts supply from outside of the USA for these non-USA vehicles would likely cause compromises to the Training Program from having either poorly maintained vehicles or just simply out of service vehicles waiting for the repair parts. There are also registration, licensing and insurance complications with imported vehicles that could preclude them from being used on public highways and Bureau of Land Management off road areas. If older right hand drive and diesel vehicle are sourced that were eligible for importation into the USA there would still be parts supply issues due to these vehicles being non-USA origin variants, with limited to no parts being locally available in the USA. There would also be additional costs due to the parts and/or vehicles needing to come from overseas. An option for NSW to review for the NSCV Training Program that would help to ensure success and longevity of the NSCV Training Vehicles would be to use USA manufactured and readily available 2002 to current Toyota Tacoma crew cab 4x4, pickup truck for the NSW NSCV training vehicles. This would ensure a readily available supply of vehicles as well as parts that will be needed to properly maintain and repair these training vehicles. The 2002 to 2004 model years Tacoma as well as the slightly larger 2005 to current model Tacoma is very close to the Hilux crew cab in overall size and operation. Another consideration to review is that the NSCV Hilux that is supplied to NSW normally has the anti-lock brakes disabled. Careful consideration should be given to the NSCV training vehicles that would require the training vendor to have the anti-lock brakes, vehicle stability control and any form of traction control disabled so that the training vehicles dynamics and handling characteristics are very similar to the

NSW NCSV. There should also be a clarification to the NSCV training vehicles with regards to the suspension system that would require the vendor to have a performance developed suspension system that would have very similar vehicle driving and handling characteristics to the actual NSW NCSV. Having a right hand drive vehicle or diesel engines to train in pales in comparison to having vehicles and parts that are available very quickly when needed as well as proper vehicle dynamics to what you will operate in service. By using a blend of the Tacoma trucks as described above you can have automatic transmissions, manual transmissions, manual transfer case controls and automatic transfer case controls. Proper training procedures can mitigate the gasoline engine vehicle performance characteristics as compared to a diesel engine.

Question Number

Question Answer

7 See question above Updated PWS Section 4.6.3.

*The PWS has been updated*

8 4.6.5 Safety.

Please define the ROPS and what the expectations are:

ROPS (roll over protection system) needs to be properly specified by NSW as to what exactly is expected by this description.

There can be several interpretations of this that range from a tubular structure mounted in the pickup bed to a simple tubing structure that partially protects portions of the inside cab area to a complete internal cab tubular structure from front to rear inside the cab that actually ties into the vehicle frame that helps to prevent the cab from separating from the frame and cab mounts during a vehicle upset.

Answer in PWS Section 4.6.3.

*The PWS has been updated*

9 I had a question regarding the NEPA compliance/analysis for the proposed training sites that is required and stated on the Performance Work Statement on the first page (4.1) under “Tasks”. It is also noted under the “Deliverables” within the PWS as well and page 55 of the solicitation (SF1449) under Subfactor (a): Technical Approach (second bullet point).

We have contacted the appropriate BLM officials and they have stated that once the proper paperwork is completed (SRP Application) it will take no less than 2-3 months to complete via “fast track”.

Considering that this solicitation was initially made public on February 7, 2014, how are any requests to this solicitation to have the required proof of NEPA

Updated Answer:

If a offeror is proposing BLM land then the NEPA analysis is already done and it just takes a Category X (CATX) modification which can be done relatively quickly (within 30 days).

The vendor is correct, the PWS in 4.1., it should state the following, "proof of eligibility of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance/analysis for the proposed site(s)."

The actual NEPA confirmation shall be provided prior to course delivery.

*The PWS has been updated* compliance in time for the submission date of this solicitation that is February 28, 2014? Three weeks is not enough time to comply with this request.

10 Are you (Laura Patterson) considered the “Contract Specialist” as mentioned on page 56 of the solicitation under Volume 2 – Past Performance?

Yes

11 Page 3 of the solicitation (SF1449) states “max quantity” as 14. Does this “14” refer to total number of trainings? Under 4.2 of the Performance Work Statement it says there will be six (6) courses for the base year. Number of students per course is listed as 12.

This refers to the total number of courses that MAY be ordered under the resulting contract.

It is not a guaranteed quantity as this solicitation is for an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type contract.

*PWS has been updated*

12 In reference to page 56 of the solicitation (SF1449). Does the Experience Information Sheet (Attachment A) have to match the Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment D) in terms of whom are listed on each one?

No it is not mandatory that they match.

13 The Experience Information Sheet (Attachment A): #4 under “Experience”.

Are we required to list all the information listed for each training performed in the same detail as required for this specific Performance Work Statement we are providing for this solicitation? Or is a summary description of the training sufficient? It would appear that they are proposing we providing in detail what is being asked on page 55 of the solicitation under “Volume 1 – Technical Proposal.

Factor 1: Technical”

In accordance with Attachment A, Experience Information Sheet #4, the offeror should “Provide detailed information of the type of work performed (refer to the categories in the Performance Work Statement and under Evaluation of Factor 1 – Technical). Include explanations of any performance problems, issues, or conflicts and the resolution.

Offerors are encouraged to provide pictures or other descriptive information. Work in more than one category may receive a higher rating (attach additional pages if necessary).”

Within the Solicitation, on page 55, it is specified that “The offeror should focus this response on Section 4.0 Tasks in the PWS.”

How the offeror formats its information is up to the offeror.

14 Page 56 of the solicitation (SF1449).

Volume 3 – Price Proposal and Other Contractual Documents (5th bullet point):

All applicable “Representations and Certifications” fully completed. What are the Representations and Certifications in question that are to be completed? It makes no specific suggestion as to what they are.

Representations and Certifications (Reps and Certs) are the submissions required in the SF1449. It includes all the required information that must be submitted to the Contracting Officer with the proposal.

The entire SF1449 must be completed-including all fill-in clauses/provisions/certifications. FAR 52.212-3 Representations and Certifications is one example- there are several within the SF

1449.

If the offeror has completed Reps and Certs in SAM.gov, it is allowed to sight those Reps and Certs as applicable to this proposal.

However not all the Reps and Certs in the solicitation are included in the SAM.gov website. Vendor is cautioned to check the information in SAM.gov and include any Reps and Certs not completed there with the proposal submission.

15 Pages 3-12 of the solicitation (SF1449) – it appears to cover the same amounts and items as attachment G.

There is nothing for the vendor to fill out on pages 11 or 12 of the SF 1449.

The SF1449 is to be completed only with the total price per CLIN, while the spreadsheet Attachment G (use most current version) will provide the Government a breakdown for each CLIN to use for validation of prices and verification of understanding of the requirements.

Offerors should use the most updated version of the Attachment G for its submission (Attachment G was revised in Amendment 0001).

Amendment 0003 Question Number

Question Answer

16 Since the solicitation response deadline has now been extended, will there be an opportunity to submit further RFI's? And if so, please confirm deadline if the case.

All remaining questions are due by 27 FEB 2014 by 11:00 AM (PST).

17 Under Volume 2 - Past Performance are the four POC form Attachment D Past Performance Worksheets sent to the "Contract Specialist" for each company if there is a joint venture or a subcontractor is present, or would the subcontractor supply their own four Attachment D Past Performance Worksheets?

No more than four (4) Past Performance references should be submitted by each offeror.

If the offeror is using the past performance of a subcontractor, joint venture partner, affiliated company, or operating divisions within the parent company for one or more of its 4 references those references must be submitted in accordance with the submission requirements on Page 56 the SF1449, Sect b.

Volume 2 – Past Performance.

18 On Feb 21 you posted an amended Pricing Sheet. We require clarification as to the extent you need pricing details. Are you asking for labor rates primarily or do you require what portion of our price is due

Provide the amount of detail that shows roughly how you arrived at your pricing.

If the Government requires additional information on the pricing it will be requested.

to fuel cost, advertizing, tire purchases, insurance cost, etc...or do you just want to see labor cost to us and the remainder as "Operating Expenses"? If we were to provide full costing details, it would be a massive and detailed file.

We of course cannot provide detail on exact costs to operate a training that has not yet been developed fully and accepted.

We, as most small business must, charge a fee to cover cost within certain parameters, and leave enough to allow for operating costs and keeping a business in the positive cash flow category. Can you please give some guidelines as to what cost you want and if the remainder may be categorized as operating costs and profits?

19 Technical Proposal Length: We read a limit of 30 pages for this. To double check does this include the The Experience Information Sheet (Attachment A)s and if so does it also include the subcontractor's four sheets? We see the font for some sections needs to be 12 and Times New Roman.

However what of the rest? Basically we are having a very difficult time reducing our technical proposal that includes curriculum rational, explanations, sample schedules, vehicle breakdown, quality control, safety plan, experience sheets, letters of commitments, etc all within a 30 page document covering 10 days training on 3 distinct vehicles platforms. Can you please clarify what should compose these 30 pages so we do not include aspects not to be included in the Technical Proposal.

The Technical Proposal is limited to 30 pages, this is exclusive of the Resumes/Certificates that are required to be submitted.

Only 4 Experience Information Sheets are allowed. They are to be submitted within the Technical Proposal.

In accordance with 52.212-1 ADDENDUM, Proposal Preparation Format and Structure, #5: “The narrative material in the proposal shall be typed or printed in Times New Roman font with the type no smaller than 12 point.” If there is a form, agreement, or some other non-narrative item that already has a font size, you do not have to change that to 12 point font.

The Government has identified submission requirements and evaluation criteria. It is up to each offeror to format submission packages appropriately.

20 Does a pre, 2000 year right hand drive, state compliant Land Cruiser meet the stated requirement per PSW H92240-14-R-0005

Answer in PWS Section 4.6.3.

*The PWS has been updated*

21 Does a pre, 2000 year state compliant FourTrac, Nissan Pathfinder or Toyota Tacoma meet the stated requirement per PSW H92240-14-R-0005

Answer in PWS Section 4.6.3.

*The PWS has been updated*

22 Will time extension be granted to import non us compliant vehicles as described in the solicitation?

Answer in PWS Section 4.6.3.

*The PWS has been updated*

23 Are there minimum and maximum vehicle dimensions, cargo capacities, seating area, Answer in PWS Section 4.6.3.

and electrical power requirements?

24 Are there a minimum ground clearance and/ or wheel travel requirement for the NSCV training vehicle?

Answer in PWS Section 4.6.3.

*The PWS has been updated*

25 How many training vehicles require electric winches? Does the winching system require a remote controlling device?

Answer in PWS Section 4.6.3.

*The PWS has been updated*

26 Does the training vehicle have a requirement for Infrared lighting?

No

27 Does the training vehicle have a requirement for “black out” conditions (brake lights, back up lights, running lights, etc…?)

No

28 Is there a requirement for minimum / maximum wheel and tire size?

Answer in PWS Section 4.6.3.

*The PWS has been updated*

29 Is there a requirement for upgraded and bolstered driver and navigator seats to accommodate the 4 point restraint system?

If so, would the requirement include the rear seating area?

Answer in PWS Section 4.6.3.

Amendment 0004

30 Regarding 3rd paragraph on page 11 [of the SF 30, Amendment 0002].

It states "The adjectival rating will be negatively effected if the proposal does not contain: 1) The proposed training site(s), and proof of eligibility of National Environmental Policy ACT (NEPA) compliance/analysis for the proposed site(s), and 2) If applicable, the Letter(s) of Commitment for key Subcontractors and Joint Venture Agreements."

This is a bit of concern for me because our training ground are located on a California State Park.

NEPA is an environmental/natural resource report for federal lands. California State Parks equivalent is California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Will we be disqualified because our training grounds is not on Federal land?

Answer in PWS Section 4.1.

*The PWS has been updated*

31 Does a 2002-2005 4 wheel drive, 4 door Toyota Tacoma meet the standard/required

PSW H92240-14-R-0005

Answer in PWS section 4.6.1.

32 Solicitation calls for the QASP to be included in response. Page 5 & 6 are required within the submission; it reads as a performance analysis – clarify who is to fill this out, do we rate our own services/standards, etc is this based on a past service? Please explain.

Please complete page 5 of the QASP that is labeled “ATTACHMENT 1:

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

SUMMARY - To be completed by offeror and submitted with proposal.”

Do not complete/submit page 6 of the QASP.

33 [In reference to] Past Performance, attachment D. (this is a 2 page document) Page 56 of the SF1449 Volume 2 - Past Performance: Offerors shall complete Section I and II of the questionnaire:

Past Performance worksheet identifies section I and II, however it does not identify this on the actual worksheet.

Please clarify where the section breaks are (this is a 2 page worksheet)

The wording is changed to “Page 1 of the 2-page questionnaire.”

*The SF 1449 has been updated.*

34 Please clarify what is being asked of “The Offeror's position regarding disclosure of proposed data in accordance with the provision entitled "Restrictions on Disclosure and Use in Proposals".

That wording has been removed from the solicitation.

*The SF 1449 has been updated.*

35 In option years 2 – 5 of contract, will vendor have the opportunity to resubmit a cost of living allowance/expense in contract? If so what would be the allowable percentage per year for cost of living increase?

This solicitation is for a firm fixed price contract. The price is offered and accepted is a fixed price. The offeror needs to propose the appropriate fixed price for each CLIN, the Government will not provide or recommend a specific percentage.

The travel CLINs are an exception to this statement and will be issued as a Not to Exceed (NTE) CLINs, that require invoices to be submitted for payment based only on actual expenses.

36 This question is in regard to #9 in the second amendment.

It states that if the offeror is planning on using BLM lands then the NEPA analysis is already done. Then it goes on to say that “proof of eligibility” of the NEPA compliance for proposed sites is needed.

This is a bit misleading and unclear. If the NEPA analysis is done what else is offeror required to provide if they currently don’t hold ANY kind of permit to operate on private or federal (BLM and state) lands within the state of California?

The NEPA Analysis Study number or copy of the cover page would suffice.

37 Can you specify what exactly is needed by Answered previously in Question 36 and in offeror in terms of permits, requirements and/or “proof of eligibility” to operate on BLM lands in CA.

We’ve spoken to BLM officials and they aren’t sure what is being ask of offeror in terms of this NEPA compliance/analysis and what constitutes “proof of eligibility”.

PWS 4.1.

38 Do photos count as pages? The Government assumes this in regards to the Volume 1 – Technical Proposal submission page limitation of 30 pages (exclusive of Resumes/Certificates and Small Business Plan, if applicable).

Yes- a page is a page, this includes photos, cover pages, title pages, letters, tables of contents, etc. All of these pages count toward the page limit. Pages in excess of 30 will NOT be considered in the evaluation. The Government will remove from the Technical Proposal any pages that are counted 31 and higher when the document is printed- if multiple documents are submitted the Government will determine the order of the printed documents and remove any pages over 30 for the last document.

As a reminder pages printed on both sides count as 2 pages.

This same rational applies to Volume 2 - Past Performance with the 15 page limitation.

39 In reference to attachment G – a) Do you only want offeror to fill in the UNITS and PRICES for each CLIN number that is currently provided? b) Do we adhere to only those CLIN numbers/descriptions that are currently listed within the spreadsheet.

Please use only the CLIN numbers provided, but the Price the offeror proposes should be based on the information that reflects its own pricing.

The UNITS and PRICES that were included in Attachment G were there for EXAMPLE

AND INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY,

and were not intended to be left in by the offeror.

If the offeror identifies additional CLINs that appear to be missing from the Solicitation it must submit a Question as soon as possible.

Only the CLINs identified in the Solicitation will be awarded for any resulting contract.

Questions are printed exactly as asked unless they have to be edited to protect proprietary information or cannot be printed without revealing the identity of the offeror.

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 10-Mar-2014 12:00 PM to 13-Mar-2014 12:00 PM.

The following have been modified:

52.212-1 ADDENDUM

In response to the solicitation the offerors are required to submit technical proposal, resumes, past performance, and price proposals for this solicitation in accordance with the instructions herein. The successful offeror will be selected based on an evaluation of proposals as outlined in 52.212-2.

PROPOSAL PREPARATION FORMAT AND STRUCTURE

1. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

2. The response shall consist of three (3) separate volumes as follows:

Volume Title 1 Technical Proposal 2 Past Performance 3 Price Proposal and Other Contractual Documents

No price information shall be submitted in the technical volume or in the cover letter for the proposal. All price information shall be submitted in the price volume only.

3. Comprehensive responses to the requirements of this Request for Proposals (RFP) are required to enable the Government to evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of, capability and approaches to accomplish the stated requirements. Proposals shall be submitted in accordance with the instructions herein, and non-conformance with the specified required content may be cause for rejection of the proposal. The proposal shall be valid for no less than 180 days from the date of RFP closing, a statement affirming this fact shall be placed on the cover page of all proposal volumes. The proposal shall provide comprehensive responses to the areas provided for in this section. The proposal shall be a complete response to the Statement of Work and the requirements of this RFP, taking into consideration required quantities and delivery schedules specified in this solicitation. The successful offeror will be selected based on an evaluation of proposals as outlined in 52.212-2.

4. The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional cost information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists;

offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price.

5. The narrative material in the proposal shall be typed or printed in Time New Roman font with the type no smaller than 12 point. A page is defined as one side of a sheet 8 ½ inches by 11 inches.

6. Electronically submitted proposals shall contain separate files for each volume, the company name of the Offeror shall appear at the top of each page and all pages shall be numbered. Electronic documents shall be in Microsoft Office or Adobe program formats. No single email will have combined attachments of more than 10 MB - in the case that more than 10 MB must be submitted, multiple emails are required.

7. The cover page of each volume shall contain:

a. The document number and title (Volume I - Technical Proposal, Volume 2 – Past Performance, Volume 3 – Price Proposal and Other Contractual Documents);

b. The item nomenclature and solicitation number of the request for proposal (RFP)

c. The full company name and CAGE code of the Offeror

d. The address of the Offeror

e. Offeror’s POC for this solicitation, name, phone number(s) and email address

8. Files shall not contain classified data.

9. Contractor’s proprietary information shall be clearly marked in the submission.

10. The Government will not make assumptions concerning the intent, capabilities, or experiences of the Offerors. Clear identification of proposal details shall rest as sole responsibility of the Offeror. Data or information previously submitted, if any, will not be used in the evaluation of your response to this Request for Proposal. Previously submitted data/information shall not therefore be included in your proposal "by reference."

11. Offerors shall verify that the information for all forms submitted are current, correct and complete including names of the points of contact, email address, fax number, and telephone number.

12. Offerors shall submit a completed and signed Offer Standard Form 1449 in Volume 3 including acknowledgement of all amendments, SF30’s, received.

13. Initial proposals should be submitted based on the most favorable terms the Offeror can submit to the Government from a technical and price position.

14. The Government may reject incomplete proposals without further consideration. Failing to submit attachments, submitting non-working attachments, or failing to properly complete the proposal, may result in rejection of the Offer without further evaluation. Offerors are urged to follow instructions.

15. Offerors are reminded that elaborate corporate marketing information, formatting, special reproduction techniques, et al are not necessary. Proposals shall completely and adequately address the requirements of this solicitation.

16. JOINT VENTURES:

If submitting a proposal as a Joint Venture, the experience and past performance of each of the Joint Venture partners can be submitted for the Joint Venture entity. The experience for each Joint Venture partner will be considered the experience of the Joint Venture entity; however, experience demonstrated by the Joint Venture entity working together on previous projects will receive more favorable consideration.

The proposed roles of the Joint Venture partners may be considered when evaluating the relevancy of the experience of a Joint Venture partner.

Joint Ventures shall submit the following additional documentation regarding their business entities:

a. A copy of their Joint Venture agreement in English, dually signed by each party by an authorized representative of each firm.

b. A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate:

i. The relationship of the joint venture parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing.

ii. The management approach of the Joint Venture in terms of who will conduct, direct, supervise and control the project and have custody and control of the assets of the joint venture and perform the duties necessary to complete the work.

iii. The structure of the Joint Venture and decision-ranking responsibilities of the joint venture parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of the work.

iv. The bonding/performance security responsibilities of the Joint Venture parties.

v. Identification of the key personnel having authority to legally bind the Joint Venture to subcontracts and state who will provide or contract for the labor and materials for the Joint Venture.

vi. Identification of party maintaining the Joint Venture bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and the deposits of all receipts, keep the books and records, and pay applicable taxes for the Joint Venture.

vii. Identification of party furnishing the facilities, such as office supplies and telephone service.

viii. Identification of party having overall control of the Joint Venture.

ix. Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual Joint Venture parties and identify the party, or hired as employees of the Joint Venture.

If one of the Joint Venture parties possesses relevant experience and/or past performance, the experience and/or past performance of that firm will be considered as the experience and/or past performance of the Joint Venture, as long as the documentation supports them fulfilling the same role as is proposed by the Offeror on this solicitation.

17. SUBCONTRACTORS:

If an Offeror wishes to be credited with experience, expertise, past performance and/or key personnel of a subcontractor (i.e., a firm that is not a member of the Joint Venture); a letter of commitment dually signed by an authorized representative of each firm must be submitted. The letter of commitment must be submitted even if the firm is in some way related to a Joint Venture partner (for example, the subcontractor is a subsidiary of a Joint Venture partner, or a subsidiary of a firm to which a Joint Venture partner is also a subsidiary). If a letter of commitment is not submitted, the experience and past performance of subcontractor firms will not be considered. If the Offeror's proposal includes the use of subcontractors, the Offeror may not change subcontractors without the Contracting Officer’s approval. Approval will not be given unless the Contracting Officer considers the proposed substitute to be equal in all respects to the originally proposed subcontractor and that the substitution is in the best interests of the Government.

18. PROPOSAL CONTENT:

Page limitations and the number of copies to be provided are shown below. If it is determined that an offer is not in compliance with the page limitation of that volume of the proposal, offerors are cautioned that pages above the specified page limit within each volume will be removed and not evaluated. The response shall consist of three (3) separate parts; Vol 1 - Technical, Vol 2 - Past Performance Information and Vol 3

– Price Proposal and Other Contractual Documents.

Page limits (pages printed on both sides count as 2 pages):

Volume Title Page Limit 1 Technical Proposal 30 (exclusive of Resumes/Certificates and

Small Business Plan, if applicable) 2 Past Performance 15 3 Price Proposal and No Limit Other Contractual

Documents

a. VOLUME 1 - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

The Technical Proposal shall be as specific and complete as to clearly demonstrate to the Government that the Offeror has a thorough comprehension and capabilities to perform all aspects of the solicitation requirements including technical, management, and resource requirements as well as all other provisions of this solicitation. Statements that the Offeror understands the problem and can or will comply with the requirements will be considered inadequate.

Factor 1: Technical – Offeror must demonstrate capability to perform in accordance with the PWS. Proposals are to be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. Offerors are cautioned not to simply rephrase or restate the government’s requirements in the proposals; but furnish convincing narratives describing “how” they intend to meet these requirements.

Subfactor (a): Technical Approach – Offeror shall demonstrate/explain its technical approach which demonstrates its technical knowledge and understanding of PWS requirements. The Offeror shall describe how it will accomplish the requirements in the PWS by providing specific narrative details and/or descriptions of actual methods, processes, and procedures that it will use in performing the tasks required in the the PWS. The offeror’s approach shall also demonstrate its ability to perform the work through its management capabilities, expertise and corporate experience.

In addition, this section must include:

The proposed training site(s), and proof of eligilbility of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance/analysis for the proposed site(s)

If applicable, Letter(s) of Commitment for Key Subcontractors and Joint Venture Agreements

Subfactor (b): Corporate Experience – Offeror shall submit the Experience Information Sheet (Attachment A) for no more than four (4) corporate experiences that have been performed by the Offeror’s firm within the past three (3) years (either completed or on-going, except that on-going programs must have begun no less than three (3) months from issuance of the RFP). The corporate experience should best represent the contractor’s experience performing work required within this solicitation. Submissions above four (4) corporate experiences will not be evaluated.

Only the first four (4), as listed in the proposal, will be evaluated.

The offeror should focus this response on Section 4.0 Tasks in the PWS.

NOTE: Additional evaluation weight will be given to those Technical Proposals which included corporate experience in with SOF community agencies which is similar to the work as required in this solicitation based on the provided solicitation documents and as amended.

Subfactor (c): Qualifications and Experience of Personnel – Offeror shall thoroughly explains its ability to provide qualified personnel to meet the requirements of the PWS.

Provide resumes for all key personnel, to include current employment status.

Resumes must be sufficiently detailed to document qualifications required in the PWS, specific experience, achievements and associated timeframes.

Offeror is to provide a statement that verification has been conducted for content of each resume submitted to include: dates of employment, job responsibilities and education.

Subfactor (d): Safety Plan – Offeror shall submit a DRAFT Safety Plan and describe it’s safety processes for the potential contract. The following minimum areas should be addressed in the plan:

Risk identification and management program Clear assignments of responsibility by key staff members

b. VOLUME 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Only references for same or similar type contracts are desired. The government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess past performance.

Provide references of no more than four (4), of the most relevant and recent contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three (3) years. Recent is defined as performance occurring within the last three (3) years of the date of this solicitation, except that on-going programs must have begun no less than three (3) months from issuance of the RFP.

A completed Past Performance Information Form (Attachment C) for each of the references listed in the summary shall be provided. Each worksheet shall not exceed two pages. Ensure the points of contact are current with correct e-mail address and telephone information. It is the offeror’s responsibility to provide correct information. Offerors shall send the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment D) to their customer’s point of contact for each of the contracts identified in the summary list requesting that the completed questionnaire be sent directly to the Contract Specialist. Offerors shall complete Page 1 of the 2-page questionnaire. It is the offeror’s responsibility to provide accurate point of contact information, perform any required follow-up with points of contacts, and to coordinate with the Contracting Officer so that the completed questionnaires are received by the RFP closing date.

The past performance evaluation may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company or joint ventures of the parent company when it is reasonable to attribute the experience of these past efforts to the proposed effort and when the proposal clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will meaningfully affect performance of the instant acquisition. Consideration of past performance of teaming partners or subcontractors will only be given if the percentage of their performance is provided and permission for its use is contained in the proposal. The past performance of teaming partners or subcontractors who are proposed to perform less than 20% of the work and are not proposed to perform critical aspects will not be evaluated.

NOTE: While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

c. VOLUME 3 – PRICE PROPOSAL AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL DOCUMENTS

Complete and provide the following:

Standard Form 1449, duly executed with a signature by an official authorized to bind the company.

Acknowledgement of all amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the Standard form 30 (amendment form).

Insurance certificate(s) indicating policy(s) limits must be submitted with proposal.

Completed Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) “Attachment 1: Performance

Requirements Summary” (Attachment E to the solicitation) All applicable “Representations and Certifications,” fully completed.

Small Business Plan: If the Offeror is a large busines it must submit a completed Small

Business Plan, Attachment B.

The offeror shall provide sufficiently detailed information as to enable the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness of the proposed price.

Offerors may be required to provide complete cost and pricing data and certification or information other than cost or pricing data at a later date if needed to adequately evaluate price proposals.

(End of provision)

52.212-2 ADDENDUM

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive, best value, trade-off source selection. This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offeror’s technical capabilities and offers submitted in response to this solictation.

By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors.

Offerors are advised that the government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s understanding of NSW’s requirements and ability to perform the work on the basis of its proposal. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to provide information and evidence that clearly demonstrates its ability to satisfactorily perform the contract requirements as stated in the solicitation and based upon factors listed below.

Award will be made to an Offeror whose proposal presents the best value in accordance with the criteria set forth in this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that proposals that do not meet these requirements may be deemed unresponsive and result in the Offeror’s proposal being rated unacceptable overall, and eliminated from further consideration.

Each factor will be evaluated on a stand-alone basis; however, information contained in one factor of the proposal may be used to assist the Government in evaluating other factors of the proposal.

The Government will evaluate all proposals and assign adjectival ratings for the Technical and Past Performance factors. The Price Factor will not be given an adjectival rating; however, this factor will be evaluated for reasonableness.

Factor 1 - Technical: The Government will compare each offeror’s technical capabilities and proposal elements against the predetermined evaluation criteria related to the Government’s requirement defined herein.

1. The following subfactors are all of equal importance to one another; and will not receive individual, adjectival ratings.

Subfactor (a) - Technical Approach: The Management Approach will be evaluated on how well it demonstrates the offeror’s technical knowledge and understanding of the requirements of the PWS and this solicitation; as well as demonstrating its capability to successfully perform and manage the tasks is in the

PWS.

The adjectival rating will be negatively effected if the proposal does not contain: 1) The proposed training site(s), and proof of eligibility of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance/analysis for the proposed site(s), and 2) If applicable, the Letter(s) of Commitment for Key Subcontractors and Joint Venture Agreements.

Subfactor (b) – Corporate Experience: The Corporate Experience will be evaluated on the breadth and depth of the entity’s experience performing the tasks described as required in the the PWS. Breadth is the number of individual tasks described in the PWS that the offeror has experience performing and depth is how much experience for each of those tasks (number of years, number of sub/contracts, etc.). This evaluation will focus on Section 4.0 Tasks of the PWS.

Subfactor (c) – Qualifications and Experience of Personnel: The Qualifications and Experience of Personnel will be evaluated to determine if the proposed personnel meet the qualifications required within this RFP and to demonstrate the offeror’s ability to provide the required qualified workforce in accordance with all requirements set forth in this RFP.

Subfactor (d) – Safety Plan: The Safety Plan will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a comprehensive, integrated plan capable of executing the tasks identified in the PWS safely in accordance with all specifications and requirements included in this RFP.

2. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign the technical factor a rating as shown below.

Ratings for Technical

Rating Description Exceptional: Greatly exceeds the minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Government. There are numerous Strengths and no Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies.

Very Good : Exceeds the minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Government.