Revised_June_30th_PXC002_RFP.pdf

NOTICE FOR FILING AGENCY PROTESTS

United States Coast Guard Ombudsman Program It is the policy of the United States Coast Guard (USCG) to issue solicitations and make contract awards in a fair and timely manner. The Ombudsman Program for Agency Protests (OPAP) was established to investigate agency protest issues and resolve them without expensive and time-consuming litigation. OPAP is an independent reviewing authority that is empowered to grant a prevailing protester essentially the same relief as the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Interested parties are encouraged to seek resolution of their concerns within the USCG as an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) forum rather than filing a protest with the GAO or some other external forum.

Interested parties may seek resolution of their concerns informally or opt to file a formal agency protest with the Contracting Officer or Ombudsman.

Informal Forum with the Ombudsman. Interested parties who believe a specific USCG procurement is unfair or otherwise defective should first direct their concerns to the applicable Contracting Officer. If the Contracting Officer is unable to satisfy their concerns, interested parties are encouraged to contact the U.S. Coast Guard Ombudsman for Agency Protests. Under this informal process the agency is not required to suspend contract award performance. Use of an informal forum does not suspend any time requirement for filing a protest with the agency or other forum. In order to ensure a timely response, interested parties should provide the following information to the Ombudsman: solicitation/contract number, contracting office, Contracting Officer, and solicitation closing date (if applicable).

Formal Agency Protest with the Ombudsman. Prior to submitting a formal agency protest, protesters must first use their best efforts to resolve their concerns with the Contracting Officer through open and frank discussions. If the protester’s concerns are unresolved, an Independent Review is available by the Ombudsman. The protester may file a formal agency protest to either the Contracting Officer or, as an alternative to that, the Ombudsman under the OPAP program.

Contract award or performance will be suspended during the protest period unless contract award or performance is justified, in writing, for urgent and compelling reasons or is determined in writing to be in the best interest of the Government. The agency’s goal is to resolve protests in less than 35 calendar days from the date of filing. Protests shall include the information set forth in FAR 33.103(d) (2). If the protester fails to submit the required information, resolution of the protest may be delayed or the protest may be dismissed. To be timely, protests must be filed within the period specified in FAR 33.103(e). Formal protests filed under the OPAP program should be submitted electronically to OPAP@uscg.mil and the Contracting Officer or by hand-delivery to the Contracting Officer.

Election of Forum. After an interested party protests a Coast Guard procurement to the Contracting Officer or the Ombudsman, and while the protest is pending, the protester agrees not to file a protest with the GAO or other external forum. If the protest is filed with an external forum, the agency protest will be dismissed. The Ombudsman Hotline telephone number is (202) 372-3695.

mailto:OPAP@uscg.mil

Page 1 of 6 HSCG23-16-R-PXC002 Revised RFP 06/30/2016

Commandant United States Coast Guard

Formal Contracts Division 1 (CG-9121) United States Coast Guard Stop 7828 2703 Martin Luther King Jr., Ave, SE Washington, DC 20593-7828 Katherine.k.west@uscg.mil

June 30, 2016 Revised RFP

To: Small Business Offerors

Subject: Request for Proposal (RFP) HSCG23-16-R-PXC002 For Ship Control And Navigation System (SCANTS)

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

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) has a requirement to purchase navigation simulators for cadet training at the USCG Academy (USCGA) in New London, CT in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The subject RFP; HSCG23-16-R-PXC002 is a set-aside for Small Business concerns under the Northern American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 333318 Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing. The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) Number/Effective Date: 2005-88 / 05-16-2016. As a result of this RFP, the USCG intends to award a Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) fixed price contract with a base year and four one-year options.

SITE VISIT

There will a site visit for Offerors to review the physical location of the navigation simulator installation in Yeaton Hall from 10:00 am to 13:00 pm on 6/29/2016. Offerors are to bring a valid Driver’s License for entry to the USCG Academy located at 15 Mohegan Avenue, New London, CT 06320. Attendees shall bear the full travel costs. Contact USCGA Point of Contact Michael Higbie to register via email Michael.P.Higbie@uscg.mil or by telephone (860) 444-8373.

BASIS OF AWARD

The basis of award will be determined utilizing the following evaluation factors in descending order of importance: (1) Technical Approach, (2) Model fidelity, (3) Form, Fit & Function of Design, (4) Life-cycle Maintenance, (5) Past Performance, (6) Price. When combined, the non-price evaluation factors are significantly more important than price. As the non-price factor ratings converge, however, the price may become more important. Offerors may submit a video demonstration of their system(s) which will be used for informational purposes only and will not be evaluated as part of their proposal.

A best value determination will be made by employing the trade-off approach in accordance with FAR 15.304(e). Of the non-price factors, priority will be given to the factors in order of precedence as delineated above. Total Evaluated Price is defined as the summation of all pricing proposed in the Price Proposal Attachment F, for the base year and all one year option years. The IDIQ minimum is $832,000.00 and the not-to-exceed ceiling is $8,740,500.00. It is anticipated the IDIQ and first task order will be awarded November 2016.

mailto:Michael.P.Higbie@uscg.mil

Page 2 of 6 HSCG23-16-R-PXC002 Revised RFP 06/30/2016

Factor (1) Technical Approach Offerors shall submit their overall technical approach to providing the simulators described in PWS Section

5. They should describe in detail how their approach meets the government requirements with an elegant overall COTS simulator solution in accordance with all of the PWS. Offerors shall submit their overall technical approach to meeting the requirements of the PWS. Include in your quote how you the installation timeline required by the PWS will be met.

Factor (2) Model Fidelity Offerors shall describe in detail the technical characteristics of their models they intend to provide to satisfy the requirements of PWS section 5.8. They shall also describe which models required in PWS the Offeror has ready in inventory. For those required models and exercise areas not in inventory the Offeror shall describe their technical approach to create a technically acceptable model based on PWS section 5.8.

Factor (3) Form, Fit and Function of Design Integration Offerors shall submit design documents required by Section 2 of the attached PWS. The 80% design submission will be evaluated for how the Offeror meets the requirements of the Government provided 10% design and how the offeror intends to meet the requirements of PWS Section 5 while integrating their equipment into the existing space at the USCGA.

Factor (4) Life-Cycle Maintenance Offerors shall fully describe their proposed standard maintenance programs to meet the requirements of PWS sections 5.12.6 and 5.12.7. Additionally, Offerors shall submit the life-cycle maintenance Attachment which will fully describe which maintenance items are included in their tiered offering throughout each year of the contract. Specifically, Offerors will indicate which years technical refreshes will be performed and which hardware components will be replaced/updated.

Factor (5) Relevant Past Performance Offerors shall submit at least three (3) recent and relevant past performance references for contracts with the private industry or Government instrumentalities (Federal, state, or local) utilizing the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment E). The past performance services must have been performed within the past three years on projects of comparable scope and complexity. Relevant is defined as similar services of equivalent nature (size and geographic scope). USCG reserves the right to contact the points of contact who completed either the past performance questionnaires specific to this RFP or assessment reports in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). For PPIRS, all relative PPIRS ratings of “Exceptional”, “Very Good”, and “Satisfactory” will be deemed “Acceptable”. For more information, please see Table 4 below.

Factor (6) Price Proposal Offerors shall input their company name in the spreadsheet, complete all pricing and not alter the spreadsheet in any way. Column C represents the estimated total cost of all the CLINs and Column D represents a subtotal for each contract period with a summation of the subtotals at the bottom of the spreadsheet. Offerors are encouraged to offer their best price in their initial proposal submission as the Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Any discounts or reductions in price provided shall be identified in the proposal cover letter.

USCG will not use adjectival ratings for Offerors’ pricing. Offerors’ CLIN pricing will be evaluated for reasonableness, balance, and by Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP). “Reasonableness” will be evaluated by USCG using the price analysis techniques noted in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.404-1(b), “Proposal Analysis Techniques – Price analysis for commercial and non-commercial items.”

Page 3 of 6 HSCG23-16-R-PXC002 Revised RFP 06/30/2016

Proposal Evaluation Evaluation descriptors used in the evaluation of proposals are defined in Table 1 below.

Table 1 – Descriptors and their Definitions Strength An element of the proposal/quote, which exceeds a requirement of the solicitation in a significantly beneficial way to the Government.

Weakness A flaw in a proposal/quote that represents a low or moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness

A major flaw in the proposal/quote that represents a moderate or high risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of the proposal to meet any requirement or combination of significant weaknesses that represents a high risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Offerors will receive a single overall evaluation rating in accordance with Table 2 below.

Table 2 – Technical Evaluation Factors and their Definitions Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the

Government's benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective

Not Rated Not applicable or has no history.

Offerors will receive a risk rating in accordance with Table 3 below:

Table 3 – Risk Ratings and their Definitions Rating Definition High The proposed approach is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase in cost or degradation of performance even with special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring.

Moderate The proposed approach can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance. However, special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Low The proposed approach has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Page 4 of 6 HSCG23-16-R-PXC002 Revised RFP 06/30/2016

Finally, Offerors will receive a performance rating in accordance with Factor 5.

Offerors are to include any certifications achieved by these facilities relevant to the operation of simulators (i.e. DNV Class A FMSS, STCW, Etc.). Offerors shall also indicate what training the relevant simulator(s) are certified to provide (i.e. STCW/USCG Bridge Resource Management, ECDIS, Etc.).

Proposal Instructions Offerors are to submit proposals using the following format:

Proposal Documents and Email:

[Contractor Name] Technical Approach including 80% design referenced in PWS. (Offeror provides Attachment A) [Contractor Name] Model Fidelity Proposal (Offeror provides Attachment B) [Contractor Name] Design_Function (including 80% design) (Offeror provides Attachment C) [Contractor Name] Demonstration (60 minute demonstration video on a CD or DVD which is optional and will not be viewed until after all quotes have been evaluated. Please do not send Attachment D by email.

Offeror provides Attachment D if available) [Contractor Name] Relevant Past Performance Attachment E [Contractor Name] Price Proposal Attachment F [Contractor Name] Life-cycle Maintenance Attachment G [Contractor Name] Terms and Conditions Attachment H [Contractor Name] Contract Contact Sheet Attachment I [Contractor Name] Offeror Rep (Offeror provides a completed copy of the provision Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Items in Attachment J

Table 4 – Past Performance Ratings and their Definitions

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective

Not Rated Not applicable or has no history.

Page 5 of 6 HSCG23-16-R-PXC002 Revised RFP 06/30/2016

Question Submission

All questions regarding this solicitation must be received by 12:00 pm ET on July 06, 2016 to the attention of Contract Specialist, Katherine West via email to Katherine.K.West@uscg.mil and Contracting Officer, Richard J. Murphy at Richard.J.Murphy@uscg.mil. Please number your questions and submit in a Microsoft Word document with your company name listed on the top of the page.

A second round of Questions regarding this solicitation must be received by 12:00 pm ET on July 18, 2016 to the attention of Contract Specialist, Katherine West via email to Katherine.K.West@uscg.mil and Contracting Officer, Richard J. Murphy at Richard.J.Murphy@uscg.mil. Please number your questions and submit in a Microsoft Word document with your company name listed on the top of the page.

Electronic and Paper Proposal Submissions Due August 12, 2016 Proposals are to be submitted by email and courier.

By Email Submit your proposal by email no later than 12:00 pm ET on August 12, 2016 to the attention of Contract Specialist, Katherine West via email to Katherine.K.West@uscg.mil and Contracting Officer, Richard J.

Murphy at Richard.J.Murphy@uscg.mil. It is each Offeror’s responsibility to ensure the proposal is received by email (in total) no later than 12:00 pm ET. Offerors are hereby notified that proposals or any portion thereof not received by the date and time specified above will not be considered.

The file capability of USCG servers is 10MB per message. Limit your message size to less than the limit by submitting your proposal in multiple transmissions. Reference in the subject line of your email HSCG23- 16-R-PXC002 and the company name. Encrypt your proposal before submitting by email and submit the password in a separate email from the proposal submission. Please note: there is no character length or mixed case requirement imposed on your password.

By Courier Two hard copies of your proposal are to be delivered by courier to the attention of Katherine West USCG Contract Specialist at the Visitor’s Center (Gate 4) on the Department of Homeland Security campus between the hours of 10am and Noon on the proposal due date noted above. A video demonstration can be included in this submission but it is not a substitute for the two hard copies. The telephone number (and text feature) for questions during the paper proposal time is 410-610-7964. This number is not to be used for any other event. All questions regarding this solicitation including requests for confirmation of receipt are to be directed to the email addresses of the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer noted above.

GPS and online map directions to the Visitor’s center and USCG headquarters vary in their accuracy. It is recommended that you enter “2699 Firth Sterling Ave SE, Washington, DC” as your destination address.

While not a real address, it will get you to the intersection of Firth Sterling Avenue SE and St. Elizabeths Road SE for access to the campus. Take Firth Sterling towards Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling (JBAB) Base and make a left onto St. Elizabeths Road SE, the access road for USCG and the Visitor’s Center.

mailto:Richard.J.Murphy@uscg.mil mailto:.West@uscg.mil

Page 6 of 6 HSCG23-16-R-PXC002 Revised RFP 06/30/2016

This RFP shall not be considered direction to proceed with the subject effort, nor a promise of future direction to proceed. Offerors are solely responsible for this RFP’s submission costs.

Sincerely, Richard J. Murphy

CONTRACTING OFFICER

Attachments:

Performance Work Statement Attachment PWS Relevant Past Performance Attachment E Price Proposal Attachment F Life-Cycle Maintenance Attachment G Terms and Conditions Attachment H Contract Contact Sheet Attachment I