II.E. Attachment 7 N6660425Q336 Sections L&M.pdf

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

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. No direct discussion between the technical representative and prospective Offeror will be conducted. Questions and proposals shall be submitted to the following point of contact:

Name: Michelle Weigert Email: michelle.e.weigert.civ@us.navy.mil

1.2 Submission Requirements

(a) The proposal shall be submitted electronically. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's understanding of the Government's requirements and ability to perform the work on the basis of its proposal. The Offeror shall provide information and documentation in detail to clearly identify its overall qualifications.

(b) The proposal shall be submitted electronically via email to Michelle Weigert at Michelle.e.weigert.civ@us.navy.mil. The Offeror shall comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposal.

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, single-spaced with no less than a one-inch margin on all sides. In the event photo reduction is used for tables, charts, and drawings, their presentation must be clear and legible. No pictures or hyperlinks are allowed.

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

(c) The Offeror is required to submit their proposal in separate volumes as follows:

Volume Volume Title Maximum Number of Pages I Technical Proposal 10 II Price No Limit III Past Performance 2 pages per reference

Important: The Offeror shall not include classified material in the volumes.

(d) The Offeror shall provide a cover letter with the following information:

(1) Solicitation number;

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

(3) A statement specifying the extent of agreement with 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 90 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) Name, title, and signature of a person authorized to sign the proposal.

(e) The Offeror shall provide fill-in information for all clauses/provisions that require it.

2.0 PASS/FAIL REQUIREMENTS

The following items will be evaluated as a Pass or Fail in relation to the solicitation requirements. The Offeror shall provide:

(1) A plan for obtaining clearances (The plan shall consist of no more than (2) pages):

(a) Personnel Clearances: The plan shall include confirmation of existing clearances, detail the Offeror’s process for obtaining clearances, and outline the schedule for any required new clearances by the start of the period of performance.

(b) Facilities Clearances: The offeror shall provide a statement identifying the level of its facility clearance. Additionally, the offeror shall provide CAGE Codes and addresses for all locations where work will be performed that require classified facilities and safeguarding capabilities as defined in the DD254 and associated references.

3.0 NON-PRICE FACTORS

The Offeror shall address each factor in the format and sequence identified in the solicitation. The Offeror must provide information in sufficient detail to allow the Government to make an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to perform the SOW tasks. The proposal shall be detailed and clearly stated to allow an assessment by the Government without the need for additional clarifications.

In the response to the RFP, the Offeror must address the below factors.

3.1 Technical Capability

3.1.1 Technical Approach

The technical capability shall include information and documentation in sufficient detail to clearly identify the Offeror’s overall qualifications. The Offeror shall demonstrate detailed knowledge and expertise in the following areas:

(1) Current capability and experience with technical engineering services and subsystem level life cycle maintenance responsibilities for the Ohio Class Submarine Command and Control System/Non-Propulsion Electronics System /Data Processing Subsystem (CCS/NPES/DPS).

3.2 Past Performance

(a) The Offeror shall submit two (2) 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 the work to be performed under this contract, including similar services provided to federal, state, or local Governments, as well as commercial customers. Include information 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 Government Program Manager (PM), or equivalent.

(b) Each past performance reference shall not exceed two (2) pages per reference, totaling four (4) pages.

4.0 PRICE

Include all data and information required for evaluation. The Offeror shall complete CLIN 0001 by filling in the proposed labor costs on a Cost Plus Fixed Fee basis for the items listed and CLIN 0002 by filling in the Other Direct Costs. CLIN 0003 requires NO additional information and will not be evaluated. The Offeror shall also provide a total price for all CLINs.

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1 General Information

(a) The Government intends to award a single contract as a result of this RFQ. Award will be made to the Offeror 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 (nonprice) features of proposals with the difference in the price to the Government.

(b) The Government intends to award a contract without discussions, as permitted by FAR 13.106-2(b)(2). However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions to permit the Offeror to revise their proposal.

1.2 Relative Importance

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

FACTORS SUBFACTORS

1 Technical Capability a) Technical Approach 2 Past Performance None 3 Price None

Technical Capability and Past Performance are of equal importance. All evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important Price. Price will increase in importance as competing proposals approach Technical Capability/Past Performance equality or when it is so significantly high as to diminish the value of technical superiority to the Government.

2.0 PASS/FAIL REQUIREMENTS

The Government will evaluate the offer based on a Pass/Fail rating for the requirements below. The Offeror must receive a Pass rating under the Pass/Fail Requirements to be eligible for award.

(1) A plan for obtaining clearances

(a) Personnel Clearances: The Government will evaluate the plan for obtaining clearances by the time of award for compliance with the DD Form 254 and the ability of the Offeror to perform. The plan shall include confirmation of existing clearances, details the Offeror’s process for obtaining clearances, and outlines the schedule for obtaining any required new clearances.

(b) Facility Security Clearance: The Government will confirm the offeror’s facility security clearance, CAGE code associated with the facility clearance and safeguarding capabilities for the offeror.

3.0 NON-PRICE FACTORS

The Government will evaluate offers and assign one of the adjectival ratings indicated in paragraph 5.0 of this Section for each of the following non-cost factors.

3.1 Technical Capability - Factor 1

3.1.1 Technical Approach - Subfactor (a)

The Government will evaluate the proposal to assess each Offeror’s knowledge and expertise in the following areas:

(1) Current capability and experience with technical engineering services and subsystem level life cycle maintenance responsibilities for the Ohio Class Submarine Command and Control System/Non-Propulsion Electronics System /Data Processing Subsystem (CCS/NPES/DPS).

3.2 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 Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) in accordance with DFAR 252.204-7024. 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.

4.0 Price

The Government may evaluate proposed prices by performing a price analysis as specified in FAR 15.404-1(b) procedures.

5.0 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

The Government will perform an evaluation of the non-price evaluation factors 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. Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

5.1 Ratings: Combined Technical/Risk 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 may involve risk of disruption of schedule, 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, and exceeds specified performance, or capability requirements, in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

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.

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 omplexities 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.

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 an unknown/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.