H92240-14-R-0005-0005.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 provides questions and answ ers received to date. It also attaches a revised PWS, Version 5, 03 MAR 2013, that replaces any other previous version. The Technical Proposal page limitation is changed to 40 pages.

Additionally the follow ing w ording is added:

To be timely, an E-mail proposal must be received in its entirety in the designated E-mail inbox by the due date and time for f inal proposal submission. An E-mail proposal that resides on a Government server, but has not appeared in the designated E-mail inbox by the due date and time for proposal submission w ill be considered late in accordance w ith FAR 15.208(b).

IAW FBO: Proposals shall be submitted electronically to w arcom.contracts@navsoc.socom.mil AND laura.patterson@navsoc.socom.mil.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 14

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 03-Mar-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

03-Mar-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 05 Q&A

Amendment 0005 Question Number

Question Answer

40 Reading the amendment 4 answer #31. The PWS now states the "Vendor shall supply at least (6) truck Training platform, Toyota Tacoma Crew Cab, model years 2002 to present with the following specifications: "

Do you now NOT accept vendors that already have in their current possession the vehicles that satisfied the PWS before amendment #4? Or do these vehicles still satisfy the PWS and we should just assume the Hilux, Land Cruiser AND Tacoma, will satisfy the PWS and COI?

PWS section 4.6.3 has been modified (attached) as requested to include Toyota Tacoma Crew Cab, Toyota Hilux, or equivalent.

The Toyota Land Cruiser does not meet the requirements as this is not a truck, would require significant modification for an internal roll cage as opposed to an external bed bar, and has different driving characteristics.

41 Pertaining to amendment #4 table column # 39.

We are still not clear on the treatment of line items under main CLIN headings. We understand we list line items such as Lead instructor, Instructor, Insurance and such and we can change the quantity of those and their unit prices. But we are still not clear on two aspects of this pricing sheet. Can or do we change the "Max Qty" to 6 for CLIN # 0001? In addition how to we handle line item descriptions for subcontractors? Do we as the prime vendor just have a single line item for the cost for the subcontractor (assuming they are 20% or more of the effort)? Or do we as the prime vendor include a breakdown of all their costs? If so do we label them as sub contractor line items or do we just include them as if they were our own staff?

Section 4.2 of the PWS has been updated to show “up to 14 courses.”

Do not change the Max Qty.

It is up to the offeror how/if to provide a break down on subcontractor costs- but they should be labeled as subcontractor costs.

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

42 The training areas that we are proposing to use are located in Ocotillo Wells SVRA and "have been identified and reviewed as areas that do not require a CEQA review". This is the exact wording that we have received from the District Manager at the California State Parks & Recreation in Borrego Springs. This seems to contradict the requirements within this solicitation. The District Manager has offered to write a letter to this effect to whomever necessary on our behalf. Could you please explain how we

If CEQA is not required for the proposed training site, then proof of an existing NEPA analysis shall be provided.

might be getting two different explanations on this matter?

43 Would an AMI (American Motorcycle Institute) certification be sufficient to satisfy the MMI (Motorcycle Mechanics Institute) certificate requirement that is stated in 4.4.1.1 of the Performance Work Statement?

AMI does not meet the requirement. AMI certification is not as in depth as MMI certification. MMI mechanics have extensive training on many engines, not just motorcycle engines, which is required with our training platforms.

44 I have found out that our subcontractor sent out four Past Performance Forms from his POC to you, and we have done so too. Can you please advise.

Past performance has 2 separate forms to be submitted separately.

The Past Performance Information Form – The Offeror should complete up to 4 forms and submit them with its proposal. These are considered part of its submission.

The Past Performance Worksheet/Questionnaires- These should come directly from your references to the Contract Specialist. The Offeror should complete page 1 of that worksheet to ensure that all its data for the POCs, Contract numbers, Contract Values, etc. match what is submitted on the Past Performance Information Form.

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

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. To be timely, an E-mail proposal must be received in its entirety in the designated E-mail inbox by the due date and time for final proposal submission. An E-mail proposal that resides on a Government server, but has not appeared in the designated E-mail inbox by the due date and time for proposal submission will be considered late in accordance with FAR 15.208(b).

8. 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

9. Files shall not contain classified data.

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

11. 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."

12. 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.

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

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

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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 40 (not including: Resumes/Certificates and proof of eligilbility of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance/analysis for the proposed site(s), Letter(s) of Commitment for Key Subcontractors, Joint Venture Agreements, 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 (these documents are not included in the Technical Proposal page limit of 40 pages):

• 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. There are numerous Strengths, and there may be minor or correctable Weaknesses, but no Significant Weaknesses or Deficiencies.

Satisfactory: Meets minimum performance or capability requirements. There may be a few minor or correctable Weaknesses and few Significant Weaknesses, but no Deficiencies.

Marginal: Meets many of the performance or capability requirements.

There are apparent or moderate Weaknesses that may correctable, and there may be several Significant Weaknesses and/or Deficiencies.

Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet most or all of the performance or capability requirements. There are numerous Significant Weaknesses and Deficiencies.

Factor 2 - Past Performance: The assessment of the Offeror’s Past Performance is used to assess the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of this solicitation as well as to determine the Offeror’s performance risk for the subject solicitation. Such consideration is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination under FAR 9. The Government reserves the right to contact references provided by the Offeror, and otherwise verify statements and representations made in the Offeror’s proposal, but reserves the right not to contact all references. 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 may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance in accordance with FAR 15.305.

Offerors individual past performance references will be rated first for relevancy (Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant or Not Relevant) and quality (Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable or Neutral). The contracting officer will then evaluate the offeror’s references in the aggregate and assign an overall confidence rating (Substantial Confidence Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence No Confidence Unknown Confidence (Neutral) based on the offeror’s past performance history. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, a Neutral rating will be assigned.

The Government may utilize relevant performance information from: (i) past and present efforts provided by the offeror (using questionnaires included as Attachment D which are forwarded by the offeror to their selected sources) and (ii) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources, as applicable. 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.

The relevancy evaluation will be based on the following definitions:

Scope: Experience in the areas defined in the PWS.

Magnitude: The measure of the similarity of the dollar value of actually performed work that exists between the PWS and the offeror’s contracts. Magnitude will be evaluated on the dollar amount of work actually performed under the contract or contracts during the relevant three-year period established by the solicitation.

These are not subfactors and will not be individually rated.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires.

The quality evaluation will be focused on the following areas: Quality, Timeliness, and Contractor Responsiveness.

These are not subfactors and will not be individually rated.

Quality: The offeror’s demonstrated history of delivering products and services of high quality and compliance with contractual requirements. Quality will be evaluated in terms of:

Overall customer satisfaction, Instances of rework and/or deficiency reports, and Evidence of effective and/or innovative work applications that were beneficial to the customer

Timeliness: The offeror’s compliance with:

Delivery and/or performance schedules, Timeliness of submission of requested information, reports, and invoicing

Contractor Responsiveness: The offeror’s demonstrated ability to:

Respond to customer concerns, Isolate and resolve problems, and take systematic improvement action

Past Performance Quality Ratings

Rating Description Good Superior accomplishment of contract requirements and very high customer satisfaction.

Acceptable Fully compliant accomplishment of contract requirements and positive customer satisfaction Marginal Accomplishes most, but not all, of the desired contract requirements and customer is marginally satisfied.

Unacceptable Failure to properly accomplish contract requirements and failure to satisfy customer.

Neutral The offeror has no past performance history OR the Contracting

Officer has determined that the past performance information provided is not directly related or similar to the requirements in the

RFP.

Following the relevancy and quality evaluations, the PCO will assign a Past Performance confidence rating for the offeror’s overall past performance. This is the overall rating that will be utilized in the trade-off process to make an award decision. The PCO’s confidence evaluation will be in accordance with the following table:

Confidence Ratings for Past Performance (Overall)

Rating 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.

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 be able to 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.

The confidence rating is the overall rating that will be used in the trade-off process to determine best value to the Government.

Factor 3 - Price: The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. All proposed prices for the contract will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness, which may be determined based on prices submitted by the competition, historical pricing, current market conditions, comparison to the Independent Government Estimate, and/or other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1.

The inclusion of option prices in arriving at a "total price" does not obligate the Government to exercise all or any part of the options. The Government may reject an offer as materially unbalanced if prices for the basic requirement or prices for the option quantities are unreasonable in comparison to each other. An unbalanced offer or proposal is one that is based on prices significantly less than cost for some work and/or significantly overstated for other work.

The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price. The greater the equality of technical proposals, the more important price shall become in selecting the Best Value to the Government.

The Government may require submission of information other than cost or pricing data to the extent necessary to evaluate price reasonableness. A contract will not be awarded to an offeror whose proposed price is not determined reasonable.

PLEASE NOTE: The Pricing Spreadsheet (Attachment G) MUST be submitted in MS Excel format, submissions of this Attachment G in formats other than MS Excel may be grounds for rejection of offer without further consideration or evaluation.

Small Business Plan, if applicable:

The Small Business Plan, if the offeror is a large business, will be used as part of the Contractor’s Responsibility Determination in accordance with FAR 9.1, as required.

Definitions

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.

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

Significant Weakness Means a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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 achieve 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 proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Discussions:

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. Offerors shall submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Proposal Preparation Instructions.

Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g., the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance or to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions, and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If the Government elects to hold discussions, a competitive range will be established based on FAR 15.306(c) procedures and this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to further 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. If the contracting officer determines that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of this decision shall be provided to unsuccessful offerors in accordance with FAR 15.503. Offerors excluded or otherwise eliminated from the competitive range may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

(End of provision)

SOLICITATION ATTACHMENTS

Attachment Description Pages

A Experience Information Sheet 2 B Small Business Plan 7 C Past Performance Information Form 1 D Past Performance Questionnaire 2 E Quality Assurance Surviellence Plan 8 F San Diego Wage Determination 05-2057 10

G Pricing Spreadsheet (must be submitted in Excel format with proposal) Version 2, 19

FEB 2014

N/A

Performance Work Statement, Version 5, 03 MAR 2014

(End of Summary of Changes)