M67854-20-R-2025-0001.docx

M6785420R2025

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 05-Jun-2020 12:00 AM to 05-Jun-2020 10:00 AM.

SECTION K - REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

The following were previously included by reference and are now included by full text:

252.227-7017 IDENTIFICATION AND ASSERTION OF USE, RELEASE, OR DISCLOSURE RESTRICTIONS. (JAN 2011)

(a) The terms used in this provision are defined in following clause or clauses contained in this solicitation--

(1) If a successful offeror will be required to deliver technical data, the Rights in Technical Data--Noncommercial Items clause, or, if this solicitation contemplates a contract under the Small Business Innovation Research Program, the Rights in Noncommercial Technical Data and Computer Software--Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program clause.

(2) If a successful offeror will not be required to deliver technical data, the Rights in Noncommercial Computer Software and Noncommercial Computer Software Documentation clause, or, if this solicitation contemplates a contract under the Small Business Innovation Research Program, the Rights in Noncommercial Technical Data and Computer Software--Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program clause.

(b) The identification and assertion requirements in this provision apply only to technical data, including computer software documents, or computer software to be delivered with other than unlimited rights. For contracts to be awarded under the Small Business Innovation Research Program, the notification requirements do not apply to technical data or computer software that will be generated under the resulting contract. Notification and identification is not required for restrictions based solely on copyright.

(c) Offers submitted in response to this solicitation shall identify, to the extent known at the time an offer is submitted to the Government, the technical data or computer software that the Offeror, its subcontractors or suppliers, or potential subcontractors or suppliers, assert should be furnished to the Government with restrictions on use, release, or disclosure.

(d) The Offeror's assertions, including the assertions of its subcontractors or suppliers or potential subcontractors or suppliers shall be submitted as an attachment to its offer in the following format, dated and signed by an official authorized to contractually obligate the Offeror:

Identification and Assertion of Restrictions on the Government's Use, Release, or Disclosure of Technical Data or Computer Software.

The Offeror asserts for itself, or the persons identified below, that the Government's rights to use, release, or disclose the following technical data or computer software should be restricted:

With Restrictions * Basis for Assertion ** Asserted Rights Category *** Restrictions ****

(LIST) ***** (LIST) (LIST) (LIST)

*For technical data (other than computer software documentation) pertaining to items, components, or processes developed at private expense, identify both the deliverable technical data and each such items, component, or process. For computer software or computer software documentation identify the software or documentation.

**Generally, development at private expense, either exclusively or partially, is the only basis for asserting restrictions. For technical data, other than computer software documentation, development refers to development of the item, component, or process to which the data pertain. The Government's rights in computer software documentation generally may not be restricted. For computer software, development refers to the software. Indicate whether development was accomplished exclusively or partially at private expense. If development was not accomplished at private expense, or for computer software documentation, enter the specific basis for asserting restrictions.

***Enter asserted rights category (e.g., government purpose license rights from a prior contract, rights in SBIR data generated under another contract, limited, restricted, or government purpose rights under this or a prior contract, or specially negotiated licenses).

****Corporation, individual, or other person, as appropriate.

*****Enter "none" when all data or software will be submitted without restrictions.

Date __________________________________________________

Printed Name and Title ________________________________

Signature _____________________________________________

(End of identification and assertion)

(e) An offeror's failure to submit, complete, or sign the notification and identification required by paragraph (d) of this provision with its offer may render the offer ineligible for award.

(f) If the Offeror is awarded a contract, the assertions identified in paragraph (d) of this provision shall be listed in an attachment to that contract. Upon request by the Contracting Officer, the Offeror shall provide sufficient information to enable the Contracting Officer to evaluate any listed assertion.

(End of provision)

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

L-1.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

L-1.1 INTRODUCTION

The Government intends to meet this requirement by selecting a contractor for a single award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract, consisting of five 1-year ordering periods, using a firm-fixed-price Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) structure.

L-1.2 GENERAL

A single concise and comprehensive proposal is required. Organization, clarity, accuracy of information, relevance, and completeness are of prime importance. The proposal shall be complete and clear in all respects without the need for additional explanation or information. The proposal shall be in sufficient detail and scope to permit the Government to evaluate it with respect to the evaluation factors specified in Section M of the solicitation.

Unnecessarily elaborate proposals beyond what is sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are not desired. Offerors shall confine the proposal submission to essential matters, sufficient to define the offer, and provide an adequate basis for evaluation. Likewise, Offerors are cautioned against general, vague, or unsubstantiated statements, which prevent or render difficult the Government’s evaluation of the proposal. Statements such as "will comply," or "noted and understood," without supporting narrative to demonstrate compliance, may cause an Offeror to be evaluated as unacceptable. Moreover, the Government will not assume that an Offeror possesses any capability, understanding, or commitment that is not specifically delineated and supported in its respective proposal.

As prescribed by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Clause 52.215-1, the Government may award on the basis of initial offers received, without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

Proposals submitted for consideration for award must address the full scope of the solicitation. Proposals which address only part of the solicitation will be considered unacceptable. Limits on the number of pages in the proposal have been imposed, as indicated in the sections below. In the event an Offeror exceeds the maximum page limit, the Government will only evaluate the number of pages prescribed (starting with page one and continuing until the maximum number is reached) for the respective volume. All pages, or any other material, in excess of the maximum number of pages stated will not be evaluated.

Data, even though previously submitted or presumed known by the Government, cannot be considered as part of the Offeror’s proposal unless submitted with, and incorporated into, the proposal.

Offerors should frequently check the Contract Opportunities website at https://beta.sam.gov/ for information concerning the requirement, responses to questions, and any issued amendments.

Proposals shall be delivered to the location listed below by 1000 am Local Time on June 5, 2020. Any proposal received after such time and date will be considered a late submission. Late submissions will be treated in accordance with FAR Clause 52.215-1(c)(3). Facsimile or e-mail submissions are not acceptable and will not be considered for award. Proposals shall be valid for a period of not less than 180 days from the closing date listed above.

Offerors shall prominently mark all containers used for delivery of proposals with the following:

“SOLICITATION M67854-20-R-2025”

Proposals shall be either hand delivered or mailed to the appropriate address listed below. Regardless of method of delivery, proposals must be received by the due date listed above. Hand carried proposals should not be delivered to the security desk.

NOTE: The building at 105 Tech Parkway in Stafford is secure, so Offerors are instructed to contact Ms. Stasia Baker at 703-432-8726 when arriving at the building. The individual delivering the proposal will be met in the lobby.

The Offeror shall also submit an electronic copy, via Department of Defense (DoD) Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE), accessible at https://safe.apps.mil. The Offeror shall email lisa.bennett@usmc.mil requesting a drop off be created and provide a name and email for the POC that should receive the drop off request. An automated email will be sent notifying the POC the drop off is open along with the required verification code. The drop off is valid for 14 days upon creation. Directions on how to execute the drop off once the POC has received the request can be found in the DoD SAFE User Guide published at https://safe.apps.mil.

INTENT TO INCORPORATE CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSAL

All or part of the successful Offeror’s proposal may be incorporated in any contract resulting from this solicitation. Nothing contained in the successful Offeror’s proposal shall constitute a waiver to any requirement of the contract. In the event of any conflict between the successful Offeror’s proposal and other requirements of the contract, the conflict shall be resolved in favor of the contract requirements.

L-1.3 QUESTIONS

Questions regarding the solicitation documents are due by 1200 local time on May 18, 2020 and must be submitted via e-mail to stasia.baker@usmc.mil and lisa.bennett@usmc.mil in the format specified in Table 1. Please do not bundle multiple questions into one. Questions received after the above time and date may not be answered. Government responses will be posted on Contract Opportunities website.

Table 1: Question Format

General Issue

Solicitation

Performance Spec

Other

L-2.0 PREPARATION OF PROPOSALS

L-2.1 FORMAT OF PROPOSAL

To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to address all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, and must thoroughly address all evaluation factors. Failure to adequately address an evaluation factor may result in an Offeror being ineligible for award.

Margins and Fonts: Proposals shall be prepared using uncompressed “Arial” or “Times New Roman” font no smaller than 12-point. Font size no smaller than 10-point may be used in flow charts, diagrams, and tables. Margins shall be 1 inch on all four sides. All materials submitted may be no more condensed than single-spaced and shall not use proportional spacing or any other method in an attempt to get more text on the page than is here specified. Offerors shall ensure that each page provides identification of the submitting Offeror in the header or footer. The header and footer may use the margins at the top and bottom of the page, but the substance of the proposal may not. Each page of the Offeror’s proposal shall contain the following legend at the bottom: Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

Pages: The definition of a page is a single side of paper with text, drawings, data, or similar content. Pages shall be 8.5 x 11 inches in size. Foldouts are allowed for technical diagrams, shall be no larger than 11 inches x 17 inches, and shall be counted as two pages.

Page Limitations: Page limitations are identified for each Volume/Section of the proposal, as described in Table 2 below, and will be treated as maximums. The maximum page limits identified in Table 2 are sequential; excess pages, those that exceed stated page limitations, will not be read or considered in evaluation of the proposal. Unless stated otherwise herein, pages providing graphics, charts, illustrations, and pictures are included in the page count. Any proposal that is prepared inconsistently with the intent of these instructions, that appears to be designed to avoid or circumvent the page limits, or that in any way inhibits the Government’s ability to evaluate offers on an equal basis may result in portions of the proposal being disregarded, or the entire proposal being rejected as non-conforming.

Format: The Offeror shall submit the proposal in MS Office 2010 or later format. The price breakdown shall include MS Excel spreadsheets with formulas intact. In the event that there is a conflict between the printed copy of the proposal and the electronic copy of the proposal, the electronic copy will take precedence.

Electronic file naming convention: Please name all files submitted electronically as follows: company-document title.xxx; where xxx is the file type (i.e. .xls or .doc).

Binders: Each printed proposal volume shall be included in three-ring binders. Individual sections should be removable from and replaceable to the volumes. Each volume shall contain a title page, table of contents, and list of tables and figures for that volume. Include a SOW Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment 7) showing the location where the evaluator should look in that volume for a discussion of a particular solicitation requirement (excluding price information). Use tab separators to separate required sections within a volume and to separate volumes within a binder; tab separators will not count against volume page limits. Number all pages (other than dividers) sequentially. Only material addressing a specific proposal section shall be included in that section. That is, Offerors must not use one section of a proposal to address another section of the proposal. Submissions deemed to have attempted to circumvent the page limits in this, or any other, manner may result in the proposal being rejected.

Copies: The Offeror shall submit one set of binders containing a paper copy of Volumes I - IV, as listed below in Table 2. Additionally, the Offeror shall submit one binder with a paper copy of Volume V, as listed below in Table 2. The Offeror shall also submit an electronic copy, via Department of Defense (DoD) Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE), accessible at https://safe.apps.mil.

Offerors are responsible for following all submission instructions and adequately addressing all evaluation factors. Ensure each section contains all the information necessary for evaluation.

L-2.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE PROPOSAL

A legible, neat, orderly, well-organized, well-written, and comprehensive proposal is required. Elaborate brochures or artwork, expensive paper or bindings, or expensive visual or presentation aids are neither necessary nor desirable; the Government requests Offerors simply present a complete and comprehensive proposal. Offerors shall follow the general rule that the quality of information is significantly more important than quantity or visual esthetics of presentation. The proposal shall be in sufficient detail and scope to permit the Government to evaluate it with respect to the evaluation factors specified in Section M, Evaluation of Proposals, below. Organization, clarity, accuracy, relevance, and completeness are of prime importance.

Table 2: Proposal Organization

As defined below

L-2.3 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF PROPOSAL CONTENT

L-2.3.1 Volume I: Executive Summary

Executive Summary: This section shall include a brief summary of the Offeror’s capability to accomplish the requirements of the contract. This part shall identify the Offeror’s cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), and Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) payment office.

Confirmation: Confirm that representations, certifications, acknowledgments, and statements have been completed electronically. (Note: Offerors must also comply with the System for Award Management (SAM) requirements of FAR Clause 52.204-7).

Valid Period: State clearly the period for which the proposal is valid (not less than 180 calendar days).

Authorized Offeror Personnel: Provide the name, title, email address, and direct telephone number of the company/division point of contact for your proposal who is authorized to obligate your company contractually.

Company and Codes: Include Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations. Provide company/division's street address, county and facility code; Commercial Activity and Government Entity (CAGE) code; Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) code; Tax Identification Code (TIN); and size of business (large or small). Also provide Company Point of Contact (POC) to include Principal(s) name, position title, and contact details.

· Attachment 7 - SOW Cross Reference Matrix: This section shall indicate the page and paragraph number(s) within the Technical Volume where an evaluator will find the detailed discussion of a particular requirement outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW). Offerors shall create a SOW Cross Reference Matrix which maps each SOW requirement addressed to the proposal location (Volume, Section, Page and Paragraph) where the requirement is discussed. Offerors shall not use the SOW Cross Reference Matrix to provide substance regarding the proposed solution or in any manner attempt to increase the volume of information permitted by the page limitations.

L-2.3.2 Volume II: Exceptions, Deviations, Conditions, Assumptions, and Waivers

Volume II shall contain all exceptions, deviations, conditions, assumptions and waiver requests that the Offeror takes with respect to the provisions of the Request for Proposal (RFP) and its applicable documents. An exception is where an Offeror states it will not comply with a requirement, usually involving contract terms and conditions. A deviation is where an Offeror states it will not comply with a requirement, but proposes an alternative to meet the intent of the requirement, usually involving a specification. Conditions are any contractor requirements which, if not met, would reduce or remove the contractor’s obligation to perform the contract according to the solicitation’s terms. An assumption is the Offeror’s understanding of something not expressly stated in the solicitation, such as circumstances that might impact the Offeror’s benefits and burdens under a resulting contract. A waiver is where an Offeror requests authorization for the Government to accept performance, or an item, that will depart from specified requirements, but would nevertheless be considered suitable. Any requirements annotated in Attachment 1, the Performance Specification, as objective requirements do not need a waiver if they are not met.

If the Offeror submits a proposal including any of the preceding features, the Offeror shall provide a description of each exception, deviation, condition, assumption, or request for waiver. Indicate the Offeror's difficulty with the applicable requirement and the Offeror's proposed solution, where applicable. Specifically identify the portions of the RFP and the Offeror's proposal that are affected. Each Request for Waiver should be clear in identifying the extent of waiver required, any substitute performance proposed, and the Offeror’s ability to perform and meet requirements if the requested waiver is not granted.

Note: Waiver requests should not be submitted for those requirements designated as key as the failure will be deemed a deficiency, rendering the proposal unawardable.

L-2.3.3 Volume III: Technical Approach

System Performance

The Offeror shall propose a system that satisfies the requirements specified in Attachment 1, Performance Specification. The offeror shall provide a brief narrative that supplements the completed Attachment 2 – P-Spec Compliance Matrix, detailing the proposed system’s capabilities and ability to meet the P-Spec requirements, and addresses SOW requirements, as required.

The Offeror shall include in its proposal a completed copy of Attachment 2, P-Spec Compliance Matrix. The matrix identifies each P-Spec requirement and includes a space for the Offeror to identify whether its proposed MCWS-X system meets or exceeds the requirement and notes the proposed capability. Offerors should understand that the Government intends to include any proposed capability that exceeds the specification as a contract requirement; therefore, if an Offeror does not wish to be bound to provide the greater capability, the Offeror should simply propose the specified value instead. The Offeror shall include supporting documents (such as independent test reports, analysis, data, or certifications) verifying the capability proposed. Additionally, the Offeror shall identify the page and paragraph numbers where the verification can be located in the supporting documents. The Government reserves the right to limit its consideration of supporting documents that do not succinctly demonstrate verification of the claimed capability. Within the P-Spec Compliance Matrix the Offeror shall identify all P-Spec requirements that are not met and for threshold requirements, reference (page and paragraph number) the appropriate Request for Waiver in Volume II.

The technical volume shall not include any cost/pricing data.

Delivery Schedule

The Offeror shall provide a Delivery Schedule in accordance with FAR Clause 52.211-9, Time of Delivery, as outlined in Attachment 3. The Delivery Schedule shall show deliveries per month as well as a quantified production lead time, from delivery order placement, for the MCWS-X Systems, MCWS-X IIP Kits, and Exhibit K (Spare Parts). The Offeror shall identify any surge or ramp-up capabilities in the Delivery Schedule that could affect production lead time.

Sustainment Approach

Training Materials The Offeror shall provide commercial training materials–such as instructor guides, student materials, and supporting media–deemed sufficient to provide Marines with a thorough knowledge and understanding of MCWS-X system set up and tear down of the system, storage, operation, preventive maintenance, corrective maintenance (if possible), troubleshooting procedures, and safety information, as outlined in SOW paragraph 3.3.12. The Government reserves the right to limit its consideration of training materials that do not succinctly demonstrate the required training.

Spares and Warranty The Offeror shall provide supportability data to include reliability, availability, and maintainability (RAM) analysis of the proposed MCWS-X system and of Lowest Replaceable Units (LRUs).

The Offeror shall provide a list of recommended spare LRUs, expendables, and consumables as well as recommended quantities to form a IIP Kit sufficient to support each system for 2 years, as well as analysis to support the recommended IIP Kit.

The Offeror shall provide a list of MCWS-X spare parts in accordance with SOW Section 3.2.2 and Exhibit K.

The Offeror shall provide the details of the warranties that will apply to the items delivered under a resulting contract, including which items are covered and which are not (if any), the terms and conditions, coverage periods, and exclusions, as outlined in SOW paragraph 3.3.13. The submissions should also address the terms of FAR clause 52.246-17.

Technical Manual The Offeror shall provide the commercial manuals to be delivered under a resulting contract, including the operation and maintenance manuals. The manuals shall provide Marines with a thorough knowledge and understanding of the MCWS-X system and include instructions for set up and tear down of the system, operation and maintenance, troubleshooting guides, and safety information as outlined in SOW paragraph 3.3.11. In accordance with DFARS Clause 252.227.7017, the Offeror shall provide any assertion of restrictions for commercial or non-commercial data provided. The Government reserves the right to limit its consideration of technical manuals that do not succinctly address the required topics.

L-2.3.4 Volume IV: Past Performance

The Offeror shall document its recent and relevant past performance by identifying a maximum of three of its most relevant contracts with at least 12 months of performance occurring during the 36 months prior to the proposal submission deadline. (Offerors shall not submit past performance information for its intended subcontractors or for work the Offeror performed as a subcontractor.) If the contract was performed for a federal agency, please submit a copy of the complete CPAR for each rating period within the 36 month recency period. Offerors shall provide a detailed explanation of the relevance (with respect to the scope, magnitude, and complexity) of the listed contracts to the requirements of the solicitation.

Offerors submissions shall address, at a minimum, delivery schedule compliance, quality control, product performance with respect to customer specifications, product sustainability, and overall customer satisfaction.

The past performance information shall contain accurate and concise information for each contract including:

Offerors are advised that the Government may use and evaluate independently obtained past performance data from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), telephonic interviews, or any other source or method, as deemed appropriate.

L-2.3.5 Volume V: Price/Cost

The pricing volume shall include all pricing information for the entire proposal. No pricing information shall be included in other volumes.

This volume shall include the model contract with all proposed pricing, including a completed copy of the Standard Form 33, acknowledging any solicitation amendments, signed by a person authorized to enter into the proposed contract on behalf of the Offeror. Pricing shall be submitted on the provided spreadsheet, Attachment 4 – Pricing Workbook and Exhibit K – Spare Parts Pricing Matrix.

For bundled costs, the phrase “Not Separately Priced” (NSP) shall be indicated for the corresponding CLIN/SLIN. Offerors shall provide a price for all line items in the solicitation.

Offerors may propose stepladder pricing for CLIN 0001 and 0002 and all applicable CLINs for the MCWS-X System and Spares in the remaining ordering periods based on the attached Pricing Workbook (Attachment 4). The price breakdown shall include MS Excel spreadsheets with formulas intact. If stepladder pricing is proposed, the Offeror shall reference the CLIN number, quantity range and price proposed. As described in FAR Clause 52.207-4, each Offeror who believes that acquisitions in different quantities would be more advantageous is invited to recommend an economic purchase quantity. If there are significant price breaks at different quantity points than what is found in the Pricing Workbook, the Offeror may propose this information as well.

Offerors shall not propose pricing for CLIN 0003 and all applicable CLINs for Exhibit K in the remaining ordering periods. Instead, the Offeror shall provide a list of individual spares and pricing in Exhibit K.

The Government assumes a proposal represents the Offeror’s best efforts to respond to the solicitation. As this is a competitive acquisition with adequate price competition anticipated, any cost/price documentation requested need not be certified cost or pricing data, as described in FAR Subsection 15.406-2. In the event that adequate price competition does not exist under this effort, after receipt of proposals, the Government may request additional cost or pricing data as necessary from the Offeror, subcontractors, and team members, pursuant to FAR Subsection 15.403-4.

Model Contract: The Offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the SF 33, with blocks 12 through 18 completed and with all Amendments acknowledged. In addition, Offerors shall include all RFP Clauses that require completion by the Offeror. Each page of the Offeror’s proposal shall contain the following legend at the bottom: Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

The Offeror shall include a firm-fixed unit price and total CLIN price for each separately priced CLIN in Section B in the format provided. All dollar amounts provided in completed Section B shall be rounded to the nearest dollar.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BASIS OF AWARD

The Government will utilize the evaluation factors in this Section to identify the best value proposal. The evaluation factors represent key areas of importance to be considered in the source selection decision. The factors have been chosen to support meaningful discrimination between and among competing proposals.

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal received before the RFP closing date and time established for this solicitation, and will use the results in making the source selection decision. The source selection process will determine the merits of each proposal in terms of its potential to best satisfy the needs of the Government as well as the overall merits in making the source selection decision.

Any Offeror that is rated “Marginal” or below in any evaluation criteria will not be considered for contract award. Any Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency will not be considered for award. Award will be to the responsible Offeror whose proposal (conforming to the solicitation) represents the best value to the Government considering the areas of Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Within the best value continuum, the Government will employ a tradeoff process that permits tradeoff among cost/price and non-cost factors (see Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subsection 15.101-1).

EVALUATION FACTORS AND RELATIVE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

The evaluation factors are listed below in descending order of importance:

· Factor 1 – Technical Approach

· Factor 2 – Past Performance

· Factor 3 – Price/Cost

Within Technical Approach, System Performance is generally more important than Sustainment Approach which is generally more important than Delivery Schedule. Note, however, that proposal flaws in either of the less important areas could be of sufficient significance as to overshadow benefits posed in either of the more important areas.

The evaluation of proposals will be conducted on a best value basis using a “trade-off” process. The non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. Because this is a best value procurement, the Government may award to other than the lowest price Offeror or to other than the Offeror with the highest technical rating if the Source Selection Authority determines that doing so would result in the best value to the Government.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

The proposed Technical Approach will be evaluated and assigned a combined technical and risk rating that reflects the proposal’s approach to, and understanding of, the Government’s requirements, the strengths and weaknesses posed by the proposal, and the risk associated with the proposed performance. Risk is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance, whether in the form of schedule disruption, degraded performance, increased cost, or the need for increased Government oversight.

The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government's requirement with respect to the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies to determine the technical rating.

Note: Regarding Table 3, ratings are merely guides for intelligent decision making. Thus, even if one or more Offeror received the same factor rating, the fact that the rating is the same does not indicate the proposals are equally rated or viewed the same; qualitative distinctions may exist even between proposals that receive the same factor rating. Ratings will be assigned at the factor level.

Table 3: Technical Ratings

Any Offeror that is rated “Marginal” or below in any evaluation criteria will not be considered for contract award. A rating of Unacceptable, in any evaluated non-price factor, will render the proposal unacceptable. Unacceptable proposals are ineligible for award without discussions.

DEFINITIONS:

· “Strength” is defined as any aspect of a proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

· “Weakness” is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (see FAR Section 15.001)

· “Significant Weakness” is defined as a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (see FAR Section 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 Section 15.001)

System Performance

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to meet the PSPEC and SOW requirements. The Government will use the P-Spec Compliance Matrix as a tool to assist in determining the offeror’s ability to meet P-Spec requirements and understanding its system’s capabilities. The Government may consider the reasonableness of the Offeror’s claimed capabilities, based on the supporting documentation and comments provided, though the Government expressly reserves the right to limit its consideration of verification materials for economy, particularly where they do not succinctly and convincingly substantiate the proposed capability. Offers can be acceptable without meeting objective requirements, but the Government will consider any additional value posed by an offeror's demonstrated ability to meet objective requirements.

An Offeror’s failure to meet any of the performance requirements will be evaluated, including the associated Request for Waiver. Certain performance requirements annotated as key requirements in Attachment 2, the P-Spec Compliance Matrix, must be met or exceeded; that is, a key performance requirement cannot be waived and an Offeror’s failure to meet any of the key performance requirements will be deemed a deficiency and the proposal evaluated as unacceptable for award. A Request for Waiver will not necessarily be considered a weakness; however, the request could be deemed a weakness or significant weakness, depending upon the nature of the requirement and the Government’s assessment of the waiver request. Waiver requests with an unreasonable, incomplete, insubstantial, or insufficient rationale, or which fails to include a suitable means of addressing the requirement, are likely to be noted as proposal defects.

Delivery Schedule

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s delivery schedule for compliance with the Government’s required delivery schedule in accordance with FAR Clause 52.211-9 and Attachment 3; merit may be provided for credibly planned early deliveries, and may also take into consideration any surge or ramp-up capabilities. The Government will evaluate any proposed schedule that is earlier than the Government desired/required schedule for the value it poses to the Government.

Sustainment Approach

Training Materials The training package will be evaluated for its sufficiency to provide Marines with a thorough knowledge and understanding of the MCWS-X system with respect to set up and tear down of the system, storage, operations, preventive maintenance, corrective maintenance (if possible), troubleshooting procedures, and safety, as outlined in SOW paragraph 3.3.12. The Government reserves the right to limit its consideration of training materials that do not succinctly demonstrate the required training.

Spares and Warranty The Government will evaluate the reliability and supportability of the proposed MCWS-X system, and will consider the RAM data provided.

The Government will evaluate the MCWS-X spares proposed, as outlined in SOW paragraph 3.2.

The Government will evaluate the proposed warranty, including the terms and conditions, coverage periods, and exclusions to determine the benefits it provides the Government.

Technical Manual The Government will evaluate the sufficiency of the Offeror’s commercial manuals to provide Marines with a thorough knowledge and understanding of MCWS-X system with respect to set up and tear down, storage, operation, preventive maintenance, corrective maintenance (if applicable), troubleshooting operations, and safety information, as outlined in SOW paragraph 3.3.11. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s assertion of restrictions on commercial and non-commercial data to determine the impacts on the Government’s use of that data. The Government reserves the right to limit its consideration of technical manuals that do not succinctly address the required topics.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Past performance is a measure of the degree to which the Offeror satisfied its customers in recent, relevant contracts. The Government assumes no duty to search for information and past performance information not submitted in conformance with the solicitation’s instructions may not be considered.

Past Performance Evaluation. The Government will evaluate Offerors’ recent past performance, determining both the relevancy and quality of performance of each effort, and then using that information to determine an overall performance confidence rating for the Offeror.

RECENCY. As a threshold matter, the Government will determine whether the submitted effort is recent, meaning that the contract, whether ongoing or completed, has at least 12 months of performance occurring during the 36 months preceding the proposal submission deadline. Efforts that are not recent will not be considered in determining a Performance Confidence Rating.

RELEVANCE. The Government will use the Offeror’s description of the effort and may also use other available information regarding the effort (e.g., CPARs, interviews, etc.) to determine the degree of similarity between the reported effort and the solicited effort. Each effort will be labeled with a relevancy rating from Table 4, the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings. The greater the similarity, the greater the likelihood that the prior effort will inform evaluators as to how the Offeror might perform the solicited effort. Relevance may include consideration of numerous aspects of the reported and solicited efforts but will nearly always consider the scope, magnitude and complexity of the effort. The Offeror bears the burden of establishing the relevance of each reported effort. Incomplete or insufficiently detailed or conflicting descriptions of the prior effort, either by the contractor or in the other past performance sources considered, may hamper the evaluator’s ability to accurately assess relevance. Where relevancy is not established, the past performance will not be considered in determining a Performance Confidence Rating.

Table 4: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE. The Government will consider the quality of the Offeror’s performance on the prior effort as assessed by customers—potentially in the form of CPARs, interviews, etc.— generally and relative to performance problems, with particular focus on the number and severity of problems and all corrective action taken by the Offeror. For this contract, the Government anticipates considering the Offeror’s performance record with respect to delivery schedule compliance, quality control, product performance with respect to customer specifications, product sustainability, and overall customer satisfaction. Offeror submissions should not assess their own performance other than to explain CPAR comments. Feedback from customers whose comments are likely to be partial (e.g. because they are proposing for this same effort, either as teammate or competitor) is not likely to be given the same consideration as feedback presumed to be impartial.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE. The Government will consider the character and quality of the Offeror’s performance on prior efforts in order to determine a single Past Performance Confidence rating from Table 5. The Offeror’s performance on individual efforts will be weighed relative to the effort’s relevance, so that how the Offeror performed on a more relevant effort will have more significance in determining the final rating than the Offeror’s performance on a less relevant effort. Performance on prior efforts may also be weighed more or less heavily based upon the identity of the customer, with greater weight for Marine Corps Systems Command efforts, and successively less weight if the effort is for the Department of Defense, other federal agencies, state or local governments, and finally for commercial customers. Where the Government does not have sufficient independent information to corroborate the offeror’s recency and relevancy descriptions, or has insufficient information regarding the quality of the offeror’s performance on the effort, the Government may give little or no consideration to that effort in determining a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. If there is insufficient past performance information to allow evaluators to determine a particular level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the solicited effort, the rating will be “Unknown Confidence (Neutral).”

Table 5: Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

FACTOR 3: PRICE/COST

The Government will utilize specific, pre-determined quantities to evaluate the pricing proposed for the MCWS-X systems and spare kits. The Government will provide a set ceiling value for Exhibit K in Attachment 4, but the prices of spares will be evaluated using Government selected quantities as well, where possible. The price evaluation will determine price reasonableness using one or more of the methods cited in FAR Subsection 15.404-1(b)(2). The Government’s price evaluation will result in an evaluated total price as well as a determination on whether the Offeror’s proposed prices are materially balanced and complete. Also, before the Government may award a contract to an Offeror, the Government must determine the Offeror’s prices are fair and reasonable.

An Offeror may be rejected if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced and this lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (see FAR Subsection 15.404-1). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items, or quantity of items within a particular line item, is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government reserves the right to request additional cost and pricing data for analysis when unbalanced pricing is suspected.

Price evaluation will include assessing whether offers conform to all required price related conditions set forth in the solicitation, including compliance with applicable administrative requirements cited in FAR Clause 52.215-1.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf