M67854-17-R-7800_0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this Amendment is to 1) add FAR clauses 52.217-9, 52.219-6, 52.222.41, 2) attached applicalble Wage Determinations; and 3) modify Sections J, L, & M based on Industry questions.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 29-Mar-2017

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X M67854-17-R-7800

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

06-Mar-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

29-Mar-2017

CODE

PM TRASYS

PROGRAM MANAGER, TRAINING SYSTEMS

12211 SCIENCE DRIVE

ORLANDO FL 32826-3224

M67854 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

M67854-17-R-7800

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0019 is added as follows:

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0019 Lot Third Party repair

COST

Cost plus G&A. Not to exceed $100,000.

FOB: Destination

ESTIMATED COST

CLIN 1019 is added as follows:

1019 Lot OPTION Third Party repair

COST

CLIN 2019 is added as follows:

2019 Lot OPTION Third Party repair

COST

CLIN 3019 is added as follows:

3019 Lot OPTION Third Party repair

COST

CLIN 4019 is added as follows:

4019 Lot OPTION Third Party repair

COST

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 0019:

INSPECT AT INSPECT BY ACCEPT AT ACCEPT BY

Destination Government Destination Government

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 1019:

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 2019:

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 3019:

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 4019:

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

52.219-6 52.222-41

The following have been added by full text:

52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT (MAR 2000)

(a) The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within 1 day of contract expiration; provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least 30 days before the contract expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension.

(b) If the Government exercises this option, the extended contract shall be considered to include this option clause.

(c) The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed 60 months.

(End of clause)

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

Attachment 1. Performance Work Statement (updated via Amendment 2) Attachment 2. Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (updated via Amendment 2) Attachment 3. UET Programs of Instruction Attachment 4. OEM Maintenace Manuals (updated via Amendment 2) Attachment 5. UET Safety Assessment Report Attachment 6. UET Training Screening Form (updated via Amendment 2) Attachment 7. MCSC Mishap and Near Miss Report Attachment 8. UET Student Surveys Attachment 9. UET Government Furnished Property Attachment 10. SEA MK2 Manuals Attachment 11. Travel Cost Attachment 12. Past Performance Questionnaire (updated via Amendment 2) Attachment 13. CDRLs (updated via Amendment 2) Attachment 14. Wage Determinations: NC WD 15-4930 (Rev.-3) dated 12/30/16, CA WD 15-5636 (Rev.-3) dated 12/30/16, HI WD 15-2153 (Rev.-3) dated 12/30/16 (added as of Amendment 02) Attachment 15. System Test Procedure (added as of Amendment 02) Attachment 16. Usage Data (added as of Amendment 02) Attachment 17. Questions and Answers (added as of Amendment 2)

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

L.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.

a. Offerors shall not submit more than one (1) proposal in response to this solicitation.

b. A 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 provide sufficient detail and scope to permit the Government to evaluate it with respect to the evaluation factors specified in this solicitation.

c. Offerors shall confine their submission to essential matters sufficient to define their offer, which will 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 define compliance are not acceptable. The Government will not assume that an Offeror possesses any capability, understanding, and/or commitment that is not specifically delineated and supported in its respective proposal.

d. The Offeror shall not include classified material in any proposal section.

e. A ceiling on the number of pages in the proposal has been imposed, as indicated in the sections below. In the event that an Offeror exceeds the maximum page limitations provided below, the Government will only evaluate the pages that comply with the maximum number prescribed (starting with page one and continuing until the maximum number is reached). The following will not be counted as part of the proposal page limitations: title page, table of contents, acronym list, PWS requirements matrix or glossary.

f. Proposals shall be valid for a period of 180 days from the date of the proposal submission deadline.

g. As prescribed by FAR 52.215-1, the Government may award on the basis of initial offers received without conducting discussions. Therefore, each proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical, past performance, and price standpoint.

h. All proposals are due by 12:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 10 April 2017 and shall be submitted to the following Government point of contact:

All mailed proposals shall be sent to the following address:

PM TRASYS – USMC

Attn: Mr. Reggie Caldwell Contract Specialist 12211 Science Drive Orlando, Florida 32826-8482 Email: reginald.caldwell@usmc.mil

All hand-carried proposals shall be delivered to the following address:

UCF Partnership III – 5th Floor 3039 Technology Parkway Orlando, Florida 32826-8482 Attn: Mr. Reggie Caldwell mailto:reginald.caldwell@usmc.mil

Contract Specialist

i. The Government does not authorize the submittal of proposals via email and/or facsimile.

j. Late proposals may be handled in accordance with FAR 52.215-1.

k. The Government intends to award a single contract as a result of this solicitation.

Questions about the solicitation documents are due by 2:00 P.M. EST on 23 March 2017 with the information in the below table identified clearly. Questions shall be submitted via email to the Contracting Specialist and/or Contracting Officer only.

Please do not bundle multiple questions into one. Questions received after the above time and date may not be addressed. Government responses will be posted electronically via Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOps).

Document/Section Paragraph Question/Issue/Concern General Issue Solicitation Performance Work Statement

Other (Specify)

Due to size and amount of files, any potential Offeror who desires the Attachments to this solicitation must send an email to reginald.caldwell@usmc.mil and edward.mcgrail@usmc.mil with the Subject “Request for UET”. The body of the email must provide an address for shipping purposes. Once received, the Government will ship a CD- ROM to the address provided in the email. The Government will not entertain any requests to extend the due date of proposals due to late requests for solicitation documentation.

L.2 PROPOSAL FORMAT.

This Request for Proposal is written in the Uniform Contract Format described in FAR 15.204-1. The Government advises prospective Offerors to read the terms and conditions of the model contract carefully. Proposals shall be prepared using “Times New Roman” 12 point font style on 8½ x 11 inch white paper. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font style not less than 8 point. Margins shall be no less than one (1) inch on all sides. All material submitted must be single-spaced. Offerors shall ensure that each page provides identification of the submitting Offeror and solicitation number in the header or footer. All pages in a volume shall be numbered sequentially. Proposals may not be printed in full color for evaluation purposes, so the Offeror shall ensure that all pages are fully legible if printed in black and white or gray-scale.

Offerors shall submit proposals as separate sections in accordance with the table below. The page limits for each section are designated as follows:

VOLUME ELECTRONIC COPIES PAPER COPIES PAGE LIMIT

Volume I: Technical Approach

1 5 30 pages

Volume II: Past Performance (Sections 1 and 2)

1 5 20 Pages (does not include CPARS submissions)

Volume III: Price 1 2 No Limit Volume IV:

Contract/Representations & Certifications

1 2 No Limit mailto:reginald.caldwell@usmc.mil mailto:edward.mcgrail@usmc.mil

L.3 PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS.

Offeror shall designate one paper copy as “original”. Should a conflict arise between the information amongst the paper copies or the electronic copies, the precedent for consideration of the proposal shall be within the written word of the original copy.

The following specific instructions are provided for the relevant portions of the proposal. The Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Price proposals shall be submitted as separate volumes. Electronic copies shall be submitted using a format which is compatible with MS Office 2007 programs. No cost or pricing information shall appear in the Technical Approach or Past Performance volumes provided, however, that the value of the past performance efforts may be included without reference to the pricing for the current proposed effort. Inclusion of cost or pricing information in the Technical Approach or Past Performance volumes shall render the proposal non-compliant and ineligible for evaluation and award.

L.4 VOLUME I. TECHNICAL APPROACH

L.4.1 The Offeror shall propose their technical approach to providing the required number of certified Instructors per training site to meet the required Student-to-Instructor (S:I) ratios (detailed in the Performance Work Statement Appendix A) for each instructional practical device utilization delineated in the Programs of Instructions (POIs) and any simultaneous events, as well as ensuring required Instructor certifications are maintained throughout the period of performance.

Please note: If an Instructor (or planned instructor approach) does not have the certification from the

Government Approved Certifying Organizations in Appendix B of the Performance Work Statement, the Contractor may submit documentation that demonstrates that the Instructor (or planned Instructor approach) has an equivalent certification by providing an explanation of how and why the certification is equivalent. The information provided must be sufficient to demonstrate that the certification proposed reflects the characteristics curriculum and level of quality of the certification listed. The Government reserves the right to reject any submitted equivalency consideration after review. Equivalent certification demonstration is exempt from the page count limitations of this Volume.

L.4.2 The Offeror shall propose their technical approach to performing all aspects of maintenance in accordance with the PWS.

L.4.3 The Offeror shall propose their technical approach to academic training that maximizes Marine through-put on the practical devices.

L.5 VOLUME II. PAST PERFORMANCE

L.5.1 Section 1: Recent and Relevant Past Performance:

The offeror shall identify up to three (3) of the Offeror’s most relevant Government past performance contracts and may identify up to an additional two (2) of the most relevant Government past performance contracts for each principal subcontractor. Principal subcontractors are defined as any entity performing 25 percent or more of the currently proposed contract Total Evaluated Price (TEP). To be considered relevant for purposes of past performance, a contract must have been performed in part within five (5) years of this proposal submission date as specified in Block 9 of Standard Form 33 of the RFP (i.e., any active portion of performance within five years). In addition, any recently awarded contract submitted for past performance must have at least six months of performance completed. Submitted contracts without performance within this specified period, or specified minimum performance completed, will not be considered by the Government. Offerors may submit past performance contracts on which they were the prime contractor or a subcontractor, although for subcontracts where the offeror performed as a subcontractor there should be a demonstrated defined scope of work for which the Offeror was responsible.

For purposes of this solicitation, relevance is defined as contract performance and responsibility similar to this solicitation performed by the Offeror and the Offeror’s principal subcontractors. Aspects of relevance include:

-the contract type,

- total dollar amount,

- dollar amount of the effort actually performed by the company for which the past performance effort is being submitted, -the location of the company that performed the effort, the length of the period of performance of the past performance effort, -the scope and complexity of the past performance effort to the effort proposed to be performed under this solicitation. The scope and complexity of the effort under this solicitation should address the safety, maintenance, operations, and/or training of a system similar to the Underwater Egress Trainer systems.

The Offeror must include all requested data that illustrates the adequacy of the Offeror’s various contracts selected to convey recent and relevant past performance. For each contract identified the Offeror shall provide the following information:

a. Name, title, email address, and phone number for the past performance reference point of contact.

b. A description of the contract effort, relative to this solicitation, that the Offeror performed or was responsible for.

c. The relevancy of the Offeror’s, and if applicable, the Offeror’s principal subcontractors’ past performance.

d. The quality of the Offeror’s past performance in the delivery of supplies and services, which includes meeting technical requirements.

e. The Offeror’s past performance in meeting schedule requirements, to include on-time or late deliveries, and modifications of original schedules.

f. The Offeror’s past performance in managing the contracted effort, to include program management, subcontract management, and cooperation with the customer.

g. The Offeror’s past performance in meeting any identified Acceptable Quality Levels or minimum thresholds of performance.

h. If applicable, any improvements to resolve systemic problems with respect to the solicitation requirements. For each past performance problem identified, describe the status of the improvement efforts and, where applicable, demonstrate the impact that the improvement effort had on resolving the systemic problem such that it would not recur.

The offeror has the burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information. It is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of data provided in its proposal. The Government has no duty to search for additional data to cure problems the government finds in the information provided by the Offeror.

Task or delivery orders awarded under single-award indefinite delivery/indefinite delivery (ID/IQ) or Multiple-Award Contracts (MACs) will be considered standalone “contracts” for purposes of past performance evaluation. Thus, Offerors may not propose an entire ID/IQ or MAC as a past performance contract reference.

In addition, regardless of relevancy, the Offeror shall provide a list of Show Cause Notices, Cure Notices and Terminations for Default received on any and all contracts, subcontracts, task orders, or delivery orders within the past 5 years. If the Offeror has not received any Show Cause Notices, Cure Notices or Terminations for Default in the past five years, the Offeror shall insert a statement to that effect.

L.5.2. Section 2: Customer Assessments:

Should any of the efforts identified in Section 1 be registered in CPARS, the contractor must provide a copy of each completed annual CPARS report(s) for all performance within the above stipulated five years

(for example, if an past performance submitted was awarded in November of 2014, the Government would expect two (2) completed annual reports). The Government will utilize the CPARS report(s) as Customer Assessments of contract performance.

For those contract not registered in CPARS or without a completed annual report, the Offeror shall provide the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Attachment 12, to each of the customer POCs for the identified past performance efforts. In order to expedite the assessment process, the Offeror may complete Section 2, Contract Information, of the PPQ for the convenience of the customer POC. The Offeror shall not, however, complete any other section of the PPQ. The PPQ shall be provided to the customer POC with instructions to complete and submit directly to the MCSC Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date. Electronic submission is preferred; however, hardcopy, mail or fax will be accepted.

As set forth on the PPQ, Offerors shall instruct past performance points of contact to send completed questionnaires to [Mr. Reggie Caldwell, Contract Specialist, via email at reginald.caldwell@usmc.mil] no later than the closing date and time specified in Block 9 on page 1 of the solicitation.

L.6 VOLUME III. PRICE

L.6.1 Pricing. The price proposal shall be submitted as a single MS Excel spreadsheet. The Offeror shall submit pricing for every line item in Section B not provided as Not to Exceed; failure to do so may result in the proposal being excluded from the competitive range or ineligible for award. All dollar amounts shall be rounded to the closest dollar and shall be evenly divisible by the quantity stated in Section B of the model contract.

CLINs with an NTE value shall not be priced, as these CLINs will be evaluated using the NTE value.

The Offeror shall insert the CLIN price submitted in this volume into the corresponding CLIN price in Section B in the SF33 submitted in Volume IV. In the event of a discrepancy between the pricing in Volume III and the Section B price inserted in Volume IV, the precedent for consideration for evaluation will be Volume III.

It is expected that a determination of fair and reasonable pricing will be made on the basis of adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Therefore, the Offeror is not required to submit or certify cost or pricing data with its proposal. If, after receipt of the proposals, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist, the Offeror shall submit certified cost or pricing data as requested by the Contracting Officer.

L.7 VOLUME IV. CONTRACT/REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

The offeror shall provide the documentation specified below:

a. Signed SF33 (and any amendments) with any/all Amendments acknowledged and all appropriate “fill-ins” completed. PLEASE BE ADVISED THIS INCLUDES ALL APPLICABLE

REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS.

b. Authorized Offeror Personnel. Provide the name, title and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually.

c. 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; and size of business ( small). Provide the same information for your principle subcontractors (Principal subcontractors are defined as any entity performing 25 percent or more of the currently proposed contract Total Proposed Price). If you are proposing as a joint venture, provide your joint venture agreement. The above information will be utilized to help establish responsibility.

d. A list of ALL subcontractors (Principal or not).

e. Statement providing presentations and pricing shall be valid for a period of 180 days from the date of the proposal submission deadline.

f. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Pre-award Clearance Information: To expedite the Government’s EEO pre-award clearance request process, the prime contractor shall include a list of all proposed subcontractors with a proposed subcontract value estimated at $10 million or more, to include the following information: Name, address, individual’s name/point of contact, and telephone number. The Government plans to request EEO clearances early in the evaluation process to avoid possible delays in making contract awards.

g. VETS 4212 Pre-award Clearance Information: As legislatively mandated under 38 U.S. Code, Section 4212, codified at 41 CFR Section 61-300, respectively, contractors and subcontractors who enter into, or modify a contract or subcontract with the federal government, and whose contract meets the criteria set forth in the above legislation/regulations, are required to report annually on their affirmative action efforts in employing veterans.

As such, offerors shall submit a copy of the confirmation of receipt notification (e-mail) for verification of successful submission of VETS 4212 report for the prime contractor and any subcontractor with a proposed subcontract value estimated at $100,000 or more. If a contractor, for any reason, cannot produce a confirmation notification then they may contact the VETS-4212 Service Center to request a verification search to be performed.

Phone: (866) 237-0275 Email: VETS4212-customersupport@dol.gov

*Please note that to perform verification search, the VETS-4212 Service Center will need one or a combination of the following information: Company Name, Company Address, Employer Identification Number (EIN), DUNS Number.

Having all of the requested data elements will provide for a more detailed search.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 GENERAL

The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria below. In accordance with FAR 15.306(a), Offerors may be given the opportunity for clarification of certain aspects of their proposal or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

M.2 AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS AND COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATIONS

Any proposal that does not substantially and materially comply with all of the requirements of this solicitation may be rejected and not considered for evaluation. Rejection of a proposal on this basis does not constitute creation of a “competitive range.” Substantially and materially comply includes: 1) Equal Opportunity Compliance, 2) proof of VETS 4212 compliance, 3) Signed SF33 and acknowledgement of ALL Amendments, and 4) Submission of all Volumes.

In accordance with 52.215-1 (included by reference in this RFP) the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. Any proposal that receives at least one factor rating of “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” will be unacceptable for award and will not be considered during the Best value trade-off. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be desired.

If the Government decides to conduct discussions, then, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(1), the Government will establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals. In setting this competitive range, the Government may determine that a proposal that receives a rating of “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” for any one, or any combination, of factors is not amongst the most “highly rated” proposals and may choose to exclude it from the competitive range. Furthermore, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2), if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Any proposal that receives at least one factor rating of “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” following discussions will be unacceptable for award and will not be considered during the best value trade-off.

M.3 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to award one contract from this solicitation. Award will be made to the proposal that results in the best value to the Government as defined in FAR 2.101 on the basis of a tradeoff between technical merit, past performance and price. The Government will utilize the following evaluation criteria to identify the best value. The evaluation factors represent key areas of importance to be considered in the source selection decisions.

The factors have been chosen to support meaningful discrimination between and among competing proposals. The proposals will be evaluated against the Government’s requirements using the following non-price factors, listed in descending order of importance:

Factor 1 Technical Approach Factor 2 Past Performances

Any elements within a factor is not weighted or rated. While the evaluated price to the Government is a substantial area to be taken into consideration in the integrated assessment of offers, the non-price factors, when combined, are substantially more important than price. Nevertheless, Offerors should submit competitive pricing. Because this is a best value procurement, the Government may award to other than lowest price offer 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. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher price to achieve only slightly superior performance capability.

M.4 TECHNICAL APPROACH EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government will review the Offeror’s Technical Approach to determine the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal:

M.4.1 Demonstrates a realistic and reasonable approach to providing the required number of certified Instructors per training site to meet the required S:I ratios for each instructional practical device utilization delineated in the POIs and any simultaneous events and maintain required instructor certifications throughout the period of performance.

M.4.2 Demonstrates a realistic and reasonable approach to performing all aspects of maintenance in accordance with the PWS.

M.4.3 Demonstrates a realistic and efficient approach to academic training that maximes Marine through-put on the practical devices.

The Government will assign each Offeror Technical Approach (Factor 1) a rating that reflects the degree to which the technical aspects of an Offeror’s proposal meet, exceed, or do not meet the solicitation’s requirements through a qualitative assessment of a proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. The adjectival ratings listed below will be applied only at the Factor level for Factor 1; they will not be applied at any element level. Technical Approach Factor ratings are merely guides for intelligent decision making. Thus, even if one or more Offerors receive the same Technical Approach Factor rating, the fact that the rating is the same does not indicate the proposals are technically equal or the same; qualitative distinctions may exist even between proposals that receive the same Factor rating.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings for Technical Approach (Factor 1)

Color Rating Definition

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

Purple 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.

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

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

Red 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.

M.5 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA

Past Performance will be evaluated to establish a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating that will reflect the Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the requirements in the solicitation, based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant past and present performance record.

M.5.1 Relevancy.

For each past performance contract submitted which satisfies the Section L requirement that at least six months of performance occurred within five (5) years of this proposal submission date as specified in Block 9 of Standard Form 33 of the RFP, the Government will evaluate the past performance contract to determine how relevant it is to this solicitation’s effort. Any past performance not within the specified timeline will be deemed “Not Relevant”.

Any past performance contract deemed to be “Not Relevant” will receive no further consideration, with no opportunity to submit a replacement, even if the Government requests revised proposals.

In determining relevancy, the Government will compare:

-the contract type,

- total dollar amount,

- dollar amount of the effort actually performed by the company for which the past performance effort is being submitted, -the location and division of the company that performed the effort, the length of the period of performance of the past performance effort, -the scope and complexity of the past performance effort to the effort proposed to be performed under this solicitation.

Performance which involves the scope aspect of underwater safety/first aid will be evaluated as more relevant than performance without underwater safety/first aid.

Performance which involves ALL aspects of scope (safety, maintenance, operations, and training of a system similar to the Underwater Egress Trainer systems) will be evaluated as more Relevant than performance with only portions of the aspects of scope. Performance as a Prime Contractor will be evaluated as more Relevant than performance as a subcontractor. Performance under a FFP will be evaluated as more Relevant than other Contract types.

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. The Government will assign each past performance contract one of the relevancy ratings listed in the table below:

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Assessment Definition

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.

M.5.2 Demonstrated Past Performance.

After relevancy of a past performance contract is established, the Government will utilize the CPARS and Past performance questionnaires to evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated past performance for that past performance contract in the following areas:

a. Quality of Product or Service. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance in the delivery of quality services, which includes meeting technical requirements, and will also incorporate other pertinent assessments from CPARS and Past Performance Questionnaires.

b. Schedule. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance in meeting schedule requirements, which will incorporate pertinent assessments from CPARS and Past Performance Questionnaires.

c. Program Management and Subcontract Management. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance in program management and subcontract management (if the Offeror is proposing to use subcontractors), which will incorporate pertinent assessments from CPARs and Past Performance Questionnaires.

For those cases where the contractor may have had past performance problems likely to occur again, the Government will assess whether the Offeror successfully applied improvements to resolve those recurring problems.

Problems not addressed by the Offeror are considered to still exist.

M.5.3 Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating.

After the Government has compiled a full assessment of the Offeror’s relevance and demonstrated past performance, the Government will assign a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating to the Offeror. The assessment reflects the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the solicited effort based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of relevant past and present performance. In assessing confidence, the Government will assign greater weight to the Offeror’s past performance than to a Principal Subcontractor, and will assign greater weight to an Offeror’s performance as a Prime Contractor than as a subcontractor. The Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings are set forth below. As part of the assessment, the Government may also take into account any show cause notices, cure notices and terminations for default.

The Government reserves the right to use contract performance data provided in the Offeror’s proposal and contract performance data obtained from other sources, including but not limited to the Government’s Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) data base or the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).

The Past Performance (Factor 2) Confidence ratings will be assessed as below:

Table 3. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings (Factor 2)

Rating Definition

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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

M.6 VOLUME III. PRICE

The Government intends to make a determination of fair and reasonable pricing on the basis of adequate price competition.

The Government will establish a “Total Evaluated Price to the Government” for each Offeror by multiplying the Offeror’s proposed unit price for each CLIN as listed in the Schedule Section B, inclusive of option CLINs, by the maximum quantity for each CLIN to calculate an extended price. All cost CLINs will be evaluated using the Not- To-Exceed (NTE) amount detailed in Section B of the solicitation. The sum of the extended prices will determine the “Total Evaluated Price to the Government”. In addition, as part of the price evaluation, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services (see FAR Clause 52.217-8) by adding six (6) months of the Offeror’s final option period price to the Offeror’s total price. Offerors are still only required to price the base and option periods.

Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six months extension of services period.

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.217-5 Evaluation Of Options JUL 1990

(End of Summary of Changes)