I.9 Sections L and M MSWP 3.0 SUPER SAP.pdf

V1.2_JULY2020

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Section L – Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors or Respondents

1.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

1.1 General Information

All questions concerning this procurement, either technical or contractual, must be submitted via email to chelsea.a.isherwood.civ@us.navy.mil. No direct discussion between the technical representative and prospective offeror will be conducted. All questions shall be submitted no later than 10 business days prior to the closing date of the request for proposal. Answers will be provided by the Government within 5 business days of receipt of question(s).

1.2 Submission Requirements

(a) Offerors shall address each factor in the format and sequence identified in the solicitation.

The Government will evaluate each offeror's understanding of the Government's requirements and ability to perform the work on the basis of its proposal. Offerors shall provide information and documentation in detail to clearly identify its overall qualifications.

(b) Proposals shall be submitted electronically via email to Chelsea Isherwood, chelsea.a.isherwood.civ@us.navy.mil. Offerors shall comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposals; proposals that do not comply may be considered unacceptable and may render the offeror ineligible for award.

1.3 Proposal Format

(a) The proposal shall be submitted in the English language. The narrative material in the proposal shall be prepared in no smaller than 10 point font, Times New Roman font style, single-spaced with no less than a one inch margin on all sides. In the event photo reduction is used for tables, charts, and technical drawings/depictions, their presentation must be clear and legible.

Hyperlinks and drawings/pictures which do not provide technical information pertinent to the technical proposal being presented are not allowed with the exception of company logo’s that are part of the offeror’s letter head. Cover pages and table of contents are excluded from the page limits listed below.

(b) Proposals and all attachments shall be readable by Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Office.

(c) Offerors are required to submit their proposals in separate volumes as follows:

Volume Volume Title Maximum Number of

Pages I Cover Letter 4 II Pass/Fail Requirements 1 III Technical Proposal 10

Technical Approach 3 Personnel 4 Key Personnel (per resume) 2

IV Past Performance (per reference) 2 V Small Business Participation No Limit VI Cost/Price No Limit

Important: Offerors shall not include classified material in the volumes.

(b) Offerors shall provide a cover letter with the following information:

(1) Solicitation number;

(2) The name, address, email address, telephone numbers, Cage Code, DUNS Number, and Tax Identification Number (TIN) of the offeror;

(3) A statement specifying unconditional acceptance of all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item.

(4) A statement that the proposal is valid through 240 (or other number) calendar days from the date specified for receipt of proposals;

(5) Names, titles, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation;

(6) DCAA and DCMA office points of contact, including branch location, contact name, telephone number, and email address;

(7) Name, title, and signature of a person authorized to sign the proposal;

(8) Identify all enclosures being transmitted as part of its proposal; and,

(9) If the offeror shall include the status of the offeror’s accounting system and provide supporting documentation (e.g. DCMA letter confirming adequacy of accounting system). Prime offerors are advised that the Government will perform a Business Systems status review of all proposed subcontractors. If a proposed subcontractor does not have an approved accounting system, the Government requires the prime offeror to detail in its proposal what analysis it performed to determine the subcontractor’s approach to accounting for costs as acceptable.

(c) Offerors shall provide fill-in information for all clauses/provisions that require it.

2.0 PASS/FAIL REQUIREMENTS

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

2.1 Failure to comply with the page limits, formatting requirements, file format requirements, and submittal instructions of section 1.0 through 1.3 will result in immediate disqualification without any further review.

2.2 Failure to provide responses to all volumes will result in immediate disqualification without any further review.

3.0 NON-COST FACTORS

Offerors shall provide information by addressing each factor and subfactor in the format and sequence identified in the solicitation. The offeror must provide information in sufficient detail to allow the Government to make an evaluation of the offeror’s ability to perform the work described in the solicitation. The proposal shall be detailed and clearly stated to allow an assessment by the Government without the need for additional clarifications. All information and data provided shall be specific to this solicitation except for the area of Past Performance.

Proposals that do not contain the information required in the solicitation risk being determined unacceptable by the Government.

In the response to the solicitation, the offeror must address the below factors and subfactors.

3.1 Technical Factors

3.1.1 TECHNICAL APPROACH

The Offeror shall provide a complete technical approach to performing the required work, including specific details of how the work will be performed. This approach must cover all aspects of the Statement of Work.

The offeror shall demonstrate they have expertise and experience in deriving business requirements which can be translated into system configuration changes as required by Task 3 Subtask 3 of the scope of work.

The offeror shall demonstrate that they have the adequate expertise and experience in Teamcenter and eQ product development and configuration as required by Task 3 Subtask 1 and Task 3 Subtask 2 of the scope of work.

The offeror shall demonstrate their ability to begin configuration work as defined by Task 3 Subtask 1 and Task 3 Subtask 2 of the scope of work within one month from the time of contract award.

3.1.2 PERSONNEL

(a) The Offeror shall provide a complete labor matrix that demonstrates an appropriate mix of personnel to accomplish all tasks/substasks in the Statement of Work (SOW). The labor matrix shall correlate Key Personnel, labor categories for Non-Key Personnel, and corresponding hours to each of the nice subtask areas in the SOW. The Offeror shall include an explanation, not to exceed four (4) total pages, for how the proposed labor matrix correlates to the SOW.

(1) Labor Categories cited must be titles listed at the NUWC Division Newport Contracts Website:

http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/WarfareCenters/NUWCNewport/Partnerships/Comm ercialContracts/LaborCategores.aspx.

For Labor Categories that provide for various Levels (I, II, III, IV), select the Level that matches the proposed individual.

Note for Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) (Formerly Service Contact Act (SCA)) Labor Categories Only: Offerors may propose a SCLS labor category listed in the SCA Directory of Occupations (see http://www.dol.gov/whd/govcontracts/sca.htm) even if the SCLS labor category is not listed at the NUWC Division Newport Contracts Website. The appropriateness of any proposed SCLS labor category not listed at the NUWC Division Newport Contracts Website shall be included in the Offeror's explanation provided in accordance with paragraph (a), above.

(1) Number of hours must be assigned to each Labor Category proposed.

(3) The offeror shall indicate that 100% of hours proposed are on the Government approved worksite. Offerors shall address any deviation from the Government’s anticipated percentages in its submitted explanation as to how the proposed labor matrix correlates to the SOW.

(4) If a single labor category is proposed with both Key and Non-Key Personnel the Offeror shall breakdown the distribution of hours between Non-Key Personnel and each Key Person.

(5) Identify all proposed personnel who are not currently employees of the Offeror or proposed subcontractor, and who are proposed to permanently relocate. Provide a statement signed by that person indicating their intent to be hired or relocated if the task order is awarded to the Offeror.

(b) If the Offeror proposes to perform any part of the proposed level of effort with employees working in excess of forty (40) hours per week, regardless of compensation arrangement, provide the following information:

(1) Identify all hours in excess of forty (40) hours per week by labor category whether at the prime or subcontract level.

(2) Provide a copy of the corporate policy addressing work in excess of forty (40) hours.

Include an assessment of its impact on work effectiveness and specify the extent to which employees are required or encouraged to perform work in excess of forty (40) hours.

http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/WarfareCenters/NUWCNewport/Partnerships/CommercialContracts/LaborCategores.aspx http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/WarfareCenters/NUWCNewport/Partnerships/CommercialContracts/LaborCategores.aspx

(3) Identify the number of hours that will be performed without supervision and provide an assessment of the productivity of such effort.

(4) Provide a schedule of times when employees will work hours in excess of forty (40) per week, such as 4:30 to 5:30 P.M. Mondays through Thursdays or 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. on Saturdays for a total of forty-four (44) hours per week.

3.1.3 KEY PERSONNEL

Offerors shall identify at least one (1) Key Persons for each of the following positions:

The offeror may identify the same Key Person for multiple positions, with exception of the system administrator, database administrator, and SharePoint administrator, which are required to be separate individuals to comply with Navy separation of duty requirements. Additionally, more than one key person may be identified if their combined experience meets the qualification and experience detailed in the following table:

Position Description/ SOW Task

Required Qualifications Desired Experience

Siemens Subject Matter Expert

Task 3 Subtask 1

4 years of Siemens corporate experience implementing TeamCenter solutions.

At least 10 years

2 years of experience upgrading TeamCenter software including packaging of silent installer and uninstaller.

At least 4 years

4 years of experience deriving business requirements which can be translated into TeamCenter system configuration changes.

At least 10 years

3 years of experience with Siemen’s Business Modeler Integrated Development Environment (BMIDE) tools, to include configuring, extending, and updating TeamCenter data models and installations.

At least 5 years

2 years of experience with Configuring and Creation of TeamCenter Workflows.

At least 4 years

1 year of experience configuring TeamCenter Rich Access Clients

At least 2 years

Must meet CSWF requirements (See SOW section 5.3.2.7; Application Administrator)

N/A – satisfies certification requirements eQ Technologic Subject Matter Expert

Task 3 Subtask 2

4 years of eQ Technologic corporate experience implementing solutions using the entire eQ corporate product set used by M&SWP 3.0.

At least 10 years

4 years of experience deriving business requirements which can be translated into eQ software system configuration changes

At least 10 years

2 years of eQ Technologic corporate experience directly related to implementing eQ smart caching and crawling systems, and integrating with reports and interfaces.

At least 4 years

3 years of experience developing eQ-MI processes/interfaces

At least 5 years

3 years of experience developing eQ-BI processes/reports

At least 5 years

1 year experience implementing eQ data migration processes/tools

At least 2 years

Must meet CSWF requirements (See SOW section 5.3.2.7; Application Administrator)

N/A – satisfies certification requirements

System Administrator

Task 2 Subtask 1 Task 2 Subtask 2

3 years of experience maintaining Navy IT system cyber security posture and authorization to operate (ATO).

At least 5 years

Must meet CSWF requirements (See SOW section 5.3.2.7; System Administrator)

N/A – satisfies certification requirements

Database Administrator

Task 2 Subtask 1 Task 2 Subtask 2

Must meet CSWF requirements (See SOW section 5.3.2.7; Database Administrator)

N/A – satisfies certification requirements

SharePoint Administrator

Task 3 Subtask 5

Must meet CSWF requirements (See SOW section 5.3.2.7; SharePoint Administrator)

N/A – satisfies certification requirements

(a) Provide resume(s) for Key Personnel. Key Personnel must be personnel that will be charged to the contract and not as a part of any indirect cost. Qualifications of Key Personnel shall not be based on the presumption of future education or experience. The qualifications listed in each individual proposed Key Personnel resume, not the specific individual, are materially relevant aspects of the proposed Key Personnel partially forming the basis of award under 5252.237- 9106, Substitution of Personnel (SEP 1990). Therefore, even if a proposed Key individual becomes unavailable to the offeror between proposal submission and award, the Government will evaluate and make its award decision based on the qualifications listed on the proposed resume(s). When the Government awards a contract under those circumstances, the Government will require the awardee to use the qualifications listed on the relevant proposed Key Personnel resume as the basis for replacing that individual under 5252.237-9106(b) during contract performance.

(b) Each resume shall not exceed two (2) pages. Resumes shall include: employee name, number of years of professional experience, current position/title/employer, educational history, chronology of professional experience, current level of security clearance. Resumes do not count towards the page total listed in Section 1.3(c).

The offeror should consider personnel availability at the time of award, personnel qualifications, personnel security investigations, and personnel expertise.

3.2 PAST PERFORMANCE

(a) The offeror shall provide three (3) past performance references, if available, that reflect recent relevant experience performed within the last three (3) years of the closing date of the solicitation that demonstrate the ability to handle work performed under this contract. Include a discussion on how the references provided are relevant to the work being proposed. Include contract/task order number, contract/task order type, program name, total contract/task order cost, short description of work performed, and names and valid telephone numbers for the Procuring Contract Officer (PCO), Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), and Program Manager (PM).

(b) Each past performance reference shall not exceed two (2) pages per reference, for a total of six (6) pages.

3.3 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

The offeror shall provide sufficient detail to permit a complete evaluation. This factor applies to every offeror (U.S and non-U.S), regardless of size status or locations of working facilities or headquarters. Small Business Participation shall include the following:

(a) All offerors shall provide the names and CAGE codes of small business concerns (including the offeror if a small business concern) who would participate in accomplishing the proposed contract; the small business classification of each U.S. small business concern (i.e. SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, VOSB, and SDVOSB); and a short description of the specific supplies or services to be provided by each small business concern. If a small business does not have a CAGE code, insert the word "None." List all SB classifications that apply to each concern.

(b) All offerors, including offerors who are themselves U.S. small business concerns based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and size standard applicable to this procurement, are to identify the extent to which U.S. small business concerns will be utilized as first-tier subcontractors in the performance of this proposed contract. U.S. small business concerns are defined (1) in FAR 19.001 and (2) by the criteria and size standards in FAR 19.102 for the applicable NAICS code.

(c) Propose a percentage for this contract. A small business offeror shall indicate the percentage of work performed by themselves, as well as by any Small Business subcontractors. Proposals submitted by Large Business Concerns shall indicate the percentage of work performed by Small Business Subcontractors. The Small Business Participation percentage shall be calculated as follows:

Participation % = Total Small Business Contract + Subcontract Dollars

Total Contract Value

(d) The Government’s estimated minimum Small Business Participation percentage for this contract is: 20%. The offeror is encouraged to propose a Small Business Participation objective percentage as high as practicable, as long as the percentage is supported by the related Small Business participation approach outlined in paragraph (e) below. The Offeror’s proposed Small Business Participation percentage for this contract shall be incorporated into the contract upon award.

(e) Provide an approach for how the Offeror intends to meet the proposed Small Business participation percentage. The Offeror shall provide rationale that demonstrates the tasks assigned to the selected Small Businesses are meaningful to the overall success of this contract. A Small Business Offeror shall include work performed as the prime contractor as well as any work performed by Small Business subcontractors. In addition, the Offeror shall describe their management approach for enhancing service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business subcontractors’ technical capability. The Offeror shall explain the reason for and advantages of selecting particular Small Business subcontractors.

4.0 COST

This requirement will be awarded as a firm fixed price contract. The offeror shall provide a cost/price breakdown for execution of the entire scope of work. The cost breakdown shall show cost per task and subtask of the scope of work. The offeror shall show the price of the contract if based on the full scope of 60 work units, but also provide a cost breakdown based on 30, 40, and 50 work units being funded for execution. The cost breakdown shall show the number of full time equivalent personnel and their associated labor rates. The cost breakdown shall show the budgeted travel/material costs separate from labor costs.

(a) Cost or pricing data and information other than cost or pricing data, from both the prime contractor and all subcontractors performing any part of the level of effort, shall be provided separately via email and in the format outlined below (see FAR 52.215-20 Alt I). Cost or pricing data provided may need to be certified prior to award (see FAR 52.215-20), and that a request for certification does not constitute “discussions” per FAR 52.215-1. No cost or pricing data shall appear in the Offeror’s technical proposal. Prime contractors, please note that FAR 52.215-12 is applicable to subcontractors proposed under this task order.

(b) The Offeror shall provide detailed information to allow the Contracting Officer to determine the cost realism and reasonableness of the proposed costs. The Offeror shall provide a single summary spreadsheet that supports the total amount of all CLINs listed in Section B. The contractor shall provide details as to the basis of labor rates proposed (i.e., actual rates, wage rate determinations, bid level rates) and burden factors. If actual direct labor rates are proposed, the Offeror shall provide the effective date(s) of the actual labor rates proposed. If the Offeror uses additional spreadsheets to build CLIN pricing, these spreadsheets shall be submitted as part of the Offeror’s proposal. The Offeror shall provide a level of effort by labor category, including subcontractor labor categories using eCRAFT categories.

(c) If a subcontractor is proposed, the prime contractor shall be responsible for justifying the reasonableness of each subcontractor's cost. The prime contractor shall indicate the type of subcontract proposed (e.g., cost type, fixed price). Prime contractors and subcontractors shall provide cost or pricing data as attachments to their proposals using a Microsoft Excel compatible spreadsheet.

If FAR clause 52.215-22, Limitations on Pass-Through Charges-Identification of Subcontract Effort and FAR 52.215-23, Limitations on Pass-Through Charges are included in the solicitation and the Offeror intends to subcontract 70% of the total cost of all work to be performed, provide information required by FAR 52.215-22(c).

(d) Supporting Documentation Requirements:

(1) Offerors shall provide the Basis of Estimate (BOE) supporting the costs/prices provided in the Cost/Price Summary including a description of the assumptions and computations used to develop the proposed costs/prices. For materials offerors shall describe their methodology for ensuring prices are fair and reasonable. The prime contractor shall be responsible for justifying the reasonableness of each subcontractor or material costs.

(2) Direct Rate Supporting Documentation: Offerors shall provide payroll journals or equivalent for all labor rates proposed based on actuals.

(3) Indirect Rate Supporting Rate Documentation: Offerors shall provide the supporting information and identify the basis of proposed rates for indirect costs (e.g., Forward Pricing Rate Agreement and date of agreement, bidding rates and the date of submission;

or, actual rates used and the effective date, billing rates, and the date of approval).

(4) Uncompensated Overtime: For the prime and each subcontractor, in accordance with FAR 52.237-10, “Identification of Uncompensated Overtime”, if uncompensated time is included in the offer or any of the supporting cost data, the uncompensated time should be clearly identified with an explanation as to why it is needed. In addition, for any prime or subcontractor proposing uncompensated time, briefly summarize the company policy on uncompensated time and provide a copy of the policy. State what, if any, impact the policy may have on the efforts described in the Statement of Work/Performance Work Statement. Provide historical data to demonstrate that the proposed level of uncompensated overtime is realistic.

(5) Facility Capital Cost of Money (FCCOM): Offerors shall submit form CASB-CMF if proposing FCCOM and show the calculation of the proposed amount. Additional narrative may be submitted as a separate document, if necessary, to describe derivation of labor rates, use of uncompensated overtime pools to which indirect rates are applied, etc.

(6) Subcontracted Costs. Each subcontractor estimate shall be addressed separately, and detailed cost information shall be provided in the same format as required for the prime contractor. Prime Offerors shall briefly state in their Cost Narrative the contract type for each subcontractor and provide rationale as to the appropriateness of the proposed subcontract type. This rationale shall include an analysis of the ability of subcontractor business systems to support the proposed subcontract type, including any supporting documentation (i.e. audits).

(7) Subcontractors shall provide contact information for their cognizant DCAA and DCMA Branch Offices with the name, phone number, and email address of a point of contact for each who is familiar with their company.

(8) FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED SUB-CONTRACTING DATA/COST

OR CONTACT INFORMATION OUTLINED IN (7) AND (8) ABOVE MAY RENDER

THE PRIME CONTRACTOR'S OFFER INELIGIBLE FOR AWARD.

(9) In accordance with current NAVSEA policy, for any fully burdened labor rate (calculated as direct labor plus all applicable burdens and fee) greater than $156.00 per hour, the Offeror shall provide a justification containing the following:

(a) Justify why the proposed individual qualifies for a fully burdened labor rate of greater than $156.00 per hour, focusing on specific qualifications and experience.

(b) Justify why the qualifications and experience outlined in (A) are needed to accomplish the tasking of the Statement of Work/Performance Work Statement, including why the tasking cannot be performed by personnel with lesser qualifications and/or experience.

Each justification provided above shall be no greater than one (1) page.

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1 General Information

(a) The Government intends to make a single award as a result of this solicitation. Award will be made to the responsible offeror meeting all Pass/Fail requirements of the solicitation and whose proposal contains the combination of those factors offering the best overall value to the Government. The best overall value to the Government will be determined by comparing the difference in value of technical (non-cost/price) features of proposals with the difference in the cost/price to the Government.

(b) The Government intends to award a contract without conducting discussions except for clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)), as permitted by FAR 15.306(a)(3) and FAR 52.215-1. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined to be necessary by the Contracting Officer.

2.0 PASS/FAIL EVALUATION

Offerors will be evaluated based on a Pass/Fail rating on the requirements listed below. Offerors must receive a Pass rating under each Pass/Fail Requirement to be eligible for award. A fail will result in no further consideration for award. The Pass/Fail rating criteria is as follows:

2.1 Failure to comply with the page limits, formatting requirements, file format requirements, and submittal instructions of section 1.0 through 1.3 will result in immediate disqualification without any further review.

2.2 Failure to provide responses to all volumes will result in immediate disqualification without any further review.

3.0 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

The following table indicates all factors and subfactors that will be considered for award.

FACTORS SUBFACTORS

1. Technical Proposals A. Technical Approach B. Personnel C. Key Personnel

2. Past Performance N/A

3. Small Business Participation N/A

4. Cost N/A

The factors listed above are in descending order of importance. All evaluation factors other than Cost, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost. As competing proposals approach Technical Proposal (Technical Approach/Personnel/Key Personnel)/Past Performance/Small Business Participation equality, Cost will increase in importance. In addition, Cost will increase in importance when it is so significantly high that it diminishes that value of the technical superiority to the Government.

4.0 NON-COST FACTORS

The Government will evaluate offers and assign one of the adjectival ratings indicated in paragraph (6.0) of this provision for each of the following non-cost factors.

4.1 Technical Factors

4.1.1 TECHNICAL APPROACH

The Government will evaluate proposals to assess each Offeror’s understanding of the work and its ability to accomplish the stated tasking within the Statement of Work.

4.1.2 PERSONNEL

(a) The Government will evaluate the overall mix of personnel, including the explanation of how any deviation (more than fifteen percent (15%) from the Government estimate) the mix of personnel correlates to the Statement of Work (SOW), to determine how well the proposed team is suited to perform all aspects of the SOW. The determination as to how well the proposed team is suitable to perform SOW tasks will include an evaluation of the likelihood and anticipated degree of success in meeting or exceeding, to the Government’s benefit, the performance standards at the acceptable quality levels defined in the Performance Requirements Summary Table (PRST) or the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP).

(b) In its evaluation of the proposed labor mix, the Government will consider the typical qualifications associated with the labor category selected, including level (i.e. I, II, III, IV), for each Non-Key Person (see http://www.navsea.navy.mil/nuwc/newport/contracts/pages/LaborCategories.aspx); for any Non- Key SCLS labor categories proposed which are not listed at the NUWC Division Newport Contracts Website, the Government will consider the functional duties detailed in the SCA Directory of Occupations (see http://www.dol.gov/whd/govcontracts/sca.htm).

(c) If the Offeror proposes personnel who would work in excess of forty (40) per week, the Government will evaluate the proposed hours, the Contractor’s corporate policy on such, the number of hours without supervision, and schedule.

4.1.3 KEY PERSONNEL

http://www.dol.gov/whd/govcontracts/sca.htm

(a) The Government will evaluate the merits of the individual as indicated in the resume against the SOW tasks to which the individual is assigned in the proposal and the typical qualifications of the selected labor category, including level (i.e. I, II, III, IV), in terms of education and experience (see http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/WarfareCenters/NUWCNewport/Partnerships/CommercialC ontracts/LaborCategories.aspx).

(b) The Government will also evaluate the collective qualifications and expertise of the proposed Key Personnel against the Key Requirements identified in Section L. A proposal that does not include Key Personnel meeting the requirements identified in Section L may be rated Unacceptable. A proposal demonstrating more complete coverage of the Key Personnel requirements identified in Section L may be determined to have greater value. If any proposed Key Personnel are not currently employees of the offeror or proposed subcontractor offeror, or who are proposed to permanently relocate, the Government will verify that signed Letters of Intent are provided.

(c) The Government will also verify that the offeror submitted certificates for those Key Personnel requiring specified certifications.

4.2 PAST PERFORMANCE

The past performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. The Government may consider past performance information contained in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). The Government may also contact all or some of each Offeror’s customers to obtain past performance information. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact, and contact references other than those provided by the Offeror. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

4.3 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

The Small Business Participation factor will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis as shown in the below table.

5.0 COST/PRICE

The Government will evaluate proposed costs by performing a cost realism analysis as described in FAR Part 15.404. The Offeror’s cost proposal will be evaluated for best value to the Government.

6.0 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/WarfareCenters/NUWCNewport/Partnerships/CommercialContracts/LaborCategories.aspx http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/WarfareCenters/NUWCNewport/Partnerships/CommercialContracts/LaborCategories.aspx

The Government will perform an evaluation of the non-cost evaluation factors and subfactors based on the offeror’s proposal. This evaluation focuses on strengths and weaknesses of the offeror’s proposal, resulting in the assignment of an adjectival rating for each factor and subfactor. Cost and Pass/Fail Requirements in Section L Instructions to Offerors will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

NOTE: The Pass/Fail Requirements in solicitation provision ‘Instructions to Offerors’ (a) will not be assigned an adjectival rating, rather they will be rated as Pass or Fail as follows:

Rating Description Pass Proposal meets the requirements.

Fail Proposal does not meet the requirements.

A “Fail” rating in any Pass/Fail requirement in solicitation provision ‘Instructions to Offerors’ will result in the Offeror being determined ineligible for award.

6.1 Technical Capability Factor Ratings: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

The following combined technical/risk ratings include consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Definitions:

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

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

Deficiency is defined as a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Risk is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost 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.

6.2 Past Performance Evaluation

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

(A) The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

(B) The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The criteria to establish what prior performance is recent and relevant shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement.

Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

There are four (4) levels of relevancy as shown below. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

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

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

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

(C) The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings shown below (reference FAR 15.305(2) for information on assigning a neutral confidence rating).

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.

Neutral Confidence

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 offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

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

6.3 Small Business Participation Rating Definitions

Rating Description Acceptable The proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable The proposal does not meet the small business objective.

6.0 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS