Draft Section L and M for KTR Comments.docx

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1. GENERAL NOTICES

a. This solicitation is reserved for 100% Small Business concerns with IDIQ contracts under Navy Seaport Next Gen. The contracting officer has determined there is a reasonable expectation of adequate competition for this acquisition. Submission of offers from other sources will not be evaluated or considered for award.

b. Proposals shall be sufficiently detailed to enable the Government to perform an accurate and complete evaluation strictly from the proposal contents.

c. After receipt of proposals, the Government will conduct a solicitation compliance review on all proposals. Offerors that are not compliant with the solicitation will not be evaluated and are not eligible for award. The Government is not obligated to inform the offeror of noncompliance to the solicitation.

d. The evaluation of this effort will be conducted in a phased approach. See Section M for additional details.

e. Late proposals from a prime contractor and/or subcontractor/consultant will not be considered.

f. The Government shall not reimburse, as a direct cost, the Offeror’s bid and proposal costs associated with proposals under this solicitation.

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

a. ONR is no longer accepting proposals from using the Seaport website.

b. Prime offerors shall provide their electronic proposal via PIEE Solicitation Module. Offerors shall follow the PIEE registration instructions and posting instructions provided by PIEE below. The proposal must be received by the date and time specified in Block 9 of the Standard Form 33, Solicitation, Offer and Award.

c. Emailed proposals and hard copy proposals are not accepted.

d. Registration Instructions: https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/ce/cap/docs/piee/PIEE_Solicitation_Module_Vendor_Access_Instructions.pdf

e. Submitting an Offer: https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Posting_Offer.pdf

f. For assistance with the Solicitation module, contact the PIEE helpdesk at disa.global.servicedesk.mbx.eb-ticket-requests@mail.mil (866)-618-5988.

g. Subcontractor(s) and/or consultant(s) submissions should be included in the prime submission package.

h. Subcontractor(s) and/or consultant(s) that do not wish to submit their proprietary rates to the prime may submit their unsuppressed proposal to the PCO and the CS via email by the date and time established on the SF33.

i. Subcontractor(s) and/or consultant(s) that submit a proprietary rate package shall follow the same instructions established below.

j. Subcontractor(s) and/or consultant(s) are notified that Navy cannot receive .zip files.

k. Should the package be received AFTER the deadline for submission, the information provided will not be used in the evaluation and only the information in the prime submission will be reviewed.

3. SUBMISSION OF QUESTIONS

a. ONR will no longer receive questions regarding the solicitation through Navy Seaport. Any/all questions regarding this solicitation must be submitted via email to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist.

b. ONR requests that offerors provide limited emails with questions and urge offerors to thoroughly review the solicitation and send

c. In order to allow sufficient time to answer questions, questions must be submitted no later than Thursday, 28 May 2026 at 2:00 pm local time, Washington D.C. The Government has the final discretion to extend or not extend the solicitation deadline and any deadline extensions will be done via a formal amendment.

d. Answers to solicitation questions will be posted via an amendment to the solicitation and posted in the PIEE Solicitation module.

e. Offeror’s who continue to submit questions asking for extensions will not be answered date.

f. Offerors shall not direct any questions concerning this solicitation to any Office of Naval Research (ONR) personnel with the exception of the Contracting Officer.

4. SOLICITATION AMENDMENTS

It is the offeror's responsibility to regularly check the PIEE Solicitation module for any postings of solicitations, amendments and questions and answers for this solicitation. Offerors shall acknowledge, via signature, all amendments to the solicitation in their proposal. Any unacknowledged amendments in the offeror’s proposal will render the proposal deficient and ineligible for award.

5. ANTICIPATED AWARD DATE

The anticipated date of award is on/around 15 Sep 2026.

6. POINT OF CONTACT

The primary point of contact for this solicitation is Ms. Mimi Truman; vivian.m.truman2.civ@us.navy.mil.

7. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND PAGE LIMITS

a. Offerors shall conform to the following Volumes.

Volume I – Business/Administrative Volume II – Technical Proposal Volume III – Past Performance Proposal Volume IV – Price Proposal

a. All volumes containing text shall have single-spaced pages (“Exactly” spacing is not permitted), on an 8 ½ x 11 inch sheet with a minimum one- inch margin all around.

b. Font shall be Times New Roman no less than 12 point.

c. Text within tables, diagrams, pictorial charts, or graphic material may use no smaller than 10- point font. 11 x 17 inch foldout pages are allowed for tables, diagrams, pictorial charts or other graphic material and will be counted as two pages.

d. Every figure and table shall be numbered and included in a list of tables in the Table of Contents.

e. Pages shall be numbered consecutively within each volume. The page limits prescribed are maximum page limits for each volume.

f. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two (2) pages.

g. Cover pages, tables of contents, cross-reference matrix, tabs, and glossaries shall not be counted against prescribed page limits.

h. Pages submitted in excess of these limits will not be read or considered in the Government’s evaluation of the proposal.

i. Each volume shall be submitted as a separately labeled electronic file.

j. All text within Volumes shall be in or compatible with Microsoft Word 2010 or Adobe Acrobat.

k. All spreadsheets in Volume IV shall be capable of being manipulated in Microsoft Excel 2010 format, and shall be submitted with all formulas intact and unlocked. Offerors shall round up to the nearest dollar with the exception of individual labor rates. All labor rates shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

l. Offerors shall submit all signature pages as scanned documents. Signatures must comply with the term “signature” as defined in FAR Subpart 2.101 and clearly express the Offeror’s present intention to bind the Offeror to perform in accordance with the solicitation. Typed text or initials do not constitute a signature. Proposals with such markings will be considered as lacking a required signature.

m. Offerors must ensure that pricing information is only included in the price proposal. Do NOT include any Pricing information in any other Volume of the proposal.

n. All unit and extended prices provided shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. Extended prices must be divisible by the number of units proposed.

o. No classified information shall be included in the proposal.

p. If more than one subcontractor is proposed, each additional subcontractor shall follow the same format as noted above.

Sub-Factor Volume Contents and Document Order Page Limitation

1. Cover Page*

2. Table of Contents*

3. Signed Offer

4. Any/All Signed Solicitation Amendments

5. VETS 4212 Report

6. NIST SP 800-171 Department of Defense Assessment showing a minimum Basic Rating Screenshot

7. OCI Attestation

8. OCI Mitigation Plan (if attestation is Yes)

9. Data Rights Assertion (if any) using DFARS Table 227)

10. CMMC Screenshot Unlimited

Subfactor 1.1 Technical Capability and Approach

20 Pages Total

Factor 1 - Technical Proposal Subfactor 1.2 Key Personnel Qualifications

10 pages total Resumes NTE 2 Pages per person Contingent Hire Statement NTE 1 Page per contingent hire

Factor 1 - Technical Proposal Subfactor 1.3 Management, Operations, and Maintenance Support

10 pages

Past Performance Proposal

1. Cover Page*

2. Table of Contents*

3. Example 1 PPIF, CPARS or PPQ, and SOW/PWS

4. Example 2 PPIF, CPARS or PPQ, and SOW/PWS

5. Example 3 PPIF, CPARS or PPQ, and SOW/PWS Unlimited

Price

1. Cover Page*

2. Table of Contents*

3. Section B Fill Ins

4. Excel Pricing Summary Sheet

5. Pricing Narrative Form

6. Subcontractor/Consultant submissions Unlimited

*Not included in page count

Proposals shall be limited to four (4) volumes and shall be submitted electronically to PIEE SOL. A packing list is below.

VOLUME I – BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATIVE has an unlimited page count and the contents shall include:

1. Cover Page

2. Table of Contents

3. Signed Offer

4. Any/All Signed Solicitation Amendments

5. VETS 4212 Report

6. NIST SP 800-171 Department of Defense Assessment showing a minimum Basic Rating Screenshot

7. OCI Attestation

8. OCI Mitigation Plan (if attestation is Yes)

9. Data Rights Assertion (if any) using DFARS Table 227)

10. CMMC Screen shot showing at least Level 2

VOLUME II – FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL

1. Cover Page

2. Table of Contents

3. Response to Factor 1 Technical Proposal Subfactor 1.1

4. Response to Factor 1 Technical Proposal Subfactor 1.2

5. Response to Factor 1 Technical Proposal Subfactor 1.3

VOLUME III – FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

1. Cover Page

2. Table of Contents

3. Example 1 PPIF, CPARS or PPQ, and SOW/PWS

4. Example 2 PPIF, CPARS or PPQ, and SOW/PWS

5. Example 3 PPIF, CPARS or PPQ, and SOW/PWS

VOLUME IV – FACTOR 3 - PRICE

1. Cover Page

2. Table of Contents

3. Section B Fill Ins

4. Excel Pricing Summary Sheet

5. Pricing Narrative Form

6. Subcontractor/Consultant submissions

8. PROPOSAL CONTENTS

VOLUME I – BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATIVE

The Cover Page shall include:

Solicitation Number Requirement Name Business Point of Contact – Name, Email, Phone Technical Point of Contact – Name, Email, Phone Cage Code and Unique Entity Identifier Number for offeror and proposed subcontractors If an affiliate per SeaPort CONOPS Affiliate Rule, state as such Name of any/all subcontractors

Table of Contents Signed Offer: The offer shall indicate the offeror’s unconditional agreement to the terms and conditions in this solicitation. It shall state proposal validity through 245 days. Finally it shall acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions reflected in any amendments to the solicitation. The Offer may be submitted in PDF format.

a Signed Offer from authorized representative

b. Any/All signed Amendments

VETS 4212 Report: In accordance with FAR 52.222-35, Equal Opportunity for Veterans, the offer must provide evidence regarding their submission of the required annual VETS-4212, Federal Contractor Veterans' Employment Report with respect to the preceding fiscal year if the offer was subject to the reporting requirements of 38 U.S.C. 4212 (d) for that fiscal year. Evidence of this submission may be submitted in PDF format.

NIST SP 800-171 Department of Defense Assessment showing a minimum Basic Rating Organizational Conflict of Interest Attestation: ONR has determined that an actual or potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI) exists when a contractor (including its parent, subsidiaries, and affiliates) performs for ONR both scientific and engineering technical assistance (SETA) or other support services and Research and Development (R&D) work. Such situations give rise to OCIs or potential OCIs based on impaired objectively, biased ground rules, and unequal access to information. ONR prefers that companies avoid such situations altogether by choosing to do only one type of work for ONR.

· The name of the entity the offeror, its subcontractors, partners, consultants or affiliates supports.

· The number of the contract, subcontract, or agreement that creates the actual or potential OCI. If ONR did not award the contract or agreement, provide a copy of the document. If ONR awarded the contract, provide the name of the technical point of contact.

· A description of the actual or potential OCI. The statement must describe in a concise manner all relevant facts concerning any past, present or currently planned interest (financial, contractual, organizational, or otherwise) relating to the work to be performed hereunder and bearing on whether the offeror has a possible organizational conflict of interest with respect to impartial, technically sound, and unbiased assessments, recommendations, or evaluations, or being given an unfair competitive advantage. If relevant, offerors shall address the personal conflicts of their employees.

· A Mitigation Plan. Offerors should refer to FAR Subpart 9.5 for policies and procedures for avoiding, neutralizing, or mitigating organizational conflicts of interest.

· A concluding statement as follows: “I [NAME] as an authorized negotiator on behalf of [NAME OF OFFEROR] certify that I have, to the best of my knowledge and belief, disclosed all actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) under [SOLICITATION NUMBER]. I understand that the failure to disclose the existence of an actual or potential OCI shall result in the offeror not being considered for award.”

OCI Mitigation Plan (if attestation is Yes) OCI Mitigation Plan Contents. At a minimum, a Mitigation Plan shall:

a. Provide organizational charts showing the offeror’s (and, as appropriate, those of its subcontractors, partners, consultants, and affiliates) structure as it relates to performance of the contract awarded under this solicitation and all contracts and agreements relevant to the OCI, highlighting those elements that create the actual or apparent OCI.

b. Demonstrate how the elements that create the actual or apparent OCI will be isolated from the resources that will perform the contract awarded under this solicitation.

c. Provide information showing whether the organizational elements that will perform the contract awarded under this solicitation will be geographically or physically separated from the elements that create the actual or apparent OCI.

d. For each contract or agreement relevant to the OCI, describe the process for reassigning personnel, including those belonging to subcontractors, partners, consultants, and affiliates, from one organization to another. Include restrictions that apply.

e. For each contract or agreement relevant to the OCI, describe the controls, including nondisclosure agreements, that are exercised over the future employment of departing employees as it relates to the OCI.

f. For each contract or agreement relevant to the OCI, describe any OCI training the employees are offered or required to attend, along with the timing (before or after starting work on a government contract), frequency, length, and content of such training.

g. Provide evidence of facts and circumstances that the offeror asserts mitigate or address the concerns related to the actual or potential OCI.

VOLUME II – FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

The Cover Page shall include:

Solicitation Number Requirement Name Business Point of Contact – Name, Email, Phone Technical Point of Contact – Name, Email, Phone Cage Code and Unique Entity Identifier Number for offeror and proposed subcontractors If an affiliate per SeaPort CONOPS Affiliate Rule, state as such Name of any/all subcontractors

Table of Contents

Response to Factor 1 Technical Proposal Subfactor 1.1 – Technical Capability and Approach

· The offeror shall include their overall technical capabilities and approach to meeting the requirement. The offeror shall also include responses to the following areas:

· Platform Expertise: Demonstrated experience and proficiency with the Microsoft Power Platform (Power Apps, Power Automate, Power BI) and SharePoint Online (SPO) administration.

· Environment Compliance: Experience deploying and managing applications within the Microsoft 365 (M365) Navy Flank Speed (NFS) cloud-hosted tenant, ensuring Navy and Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) and Section 508 accessibility compliance.

· SDLC & Methodology: A clear approach to full software development lifecycle (SDLC) management using Agile Scrum methodology, including sprint planning, backlog grooming, and utilizing Azure DevOps for tracking.

· Testing & Quality Assurance: Approach to executable test plans, defect tracking, Quality Assurance (QA) reviews, and facilitating User Acceptance Testing (UAT).

Response to Factor 1 Technical Proposal Subfactor 1.2 – Key Personnel Qualifications The Government will review the proposed Key Personnel (Lead Technology Specialist and Senior Technology Analyst) resumes against the minimum and preferred requirements as identified in the PWS.

Response to Factor 1 Technical Proposal Subfactor 1.3 – Management, Operations, and Maintenance Support

· The offeror shall include their proposed plans for day-to-day operations, governance, and user support. The offeror shall also include responses to the following areas:

· Program Management & Governance: Ability to facilitate a government-led Change Control Board (CCB), manage System Change Requests (SCRs), and maintain strict configuration management between distinct DEV (MBA-RPITMS-DEV) and PROD (CP-ONR-PROD) environments.

· Help Desk & User Support: Capability to provide daily help desk support through a ticketing system, meet service level objectives, and generate project performance metrics/reports.

· Training Capabilities: Approach to developing and conducting end-user training, maintaining "how-to" guides, embedded in-app guidance, and coordinating outreach with DON HRPP personnel.

VOLUME II – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Cover Page shall include:

Solicitation Number Requirement Name Business Point of Contact – Name, Email, Phone Technical Point of Contact – Name, Email, Phone Cage Code and Unique Entity Identifier Number for offeror and proposed subcontractors If an affiliate per SeaPort CONOPS Affiliate Rule, state as such Name of any/all subcontractors

Table of Contents

Past Performance Example 1 Past Performance Information Sheet. See Section J for reference.

CPARS or Past Performance Questionnaire. See Section J for reference.

Statement of Work for Example 1

Past Performance Example 2 Past Performance Information Sheet. See Section J for reference.

CPARS or Past Performance Questionnaire. See Section J for reference.

Statement of Work for Example 2

Past Performance Example 3 Past Performance Information Sheet. See Section J for reference.

CPARS or Past Performance Questionnaire. See Section J for reference.

Statement of Work for Example 3

Offerors shall provide information relative to previous work for the same or similar services provided for all past and on-going work in Government and Non-Government contracts for technical, financial and program management support services.

Offerors must complete the Past Performance Information Form to detail and summarize the past performance information requested in this volume. See Section J for reference.

Offerors shall provide three (3) relevant past performance examples of contract efforts performed with similar size, scope, and complexity. Past performance examples must have been performed within the past three (3) years as of the date of the solicitation. Relevant past performance is defined as efforts performed in the past three (3) years that directly track to the functional areas of the PWS (Section C) for this effort. Data concerning the offeror shall be provided first, followed by the proposed major subcontractor (if applicable), in alphabetical order. A major subcontractor is defined as one who is performing at least $1M worth of the total proposed price, excluding ODCs and profit/fee. Past performance information from subcontractors will not be considered unless the subcontractor is performing at least $1M worth of the total proposed price, excluding ODC’s and profit/fee. Subcontractor past performance can only replace one (1) past performance example for the offeror. The offeror is still required to provide two (2) past performance examples if a major subcontractor is providing one (1) past performance example.

Offerors citing an IDIQ award as an example shall also include the Task Order number work is performed under.

If the offeror does not have three (3) recent and relevant contract efforts, the offeror shall make such a statement in this section of the proposal.

Offerors can elect to submit their most recent final CPARS or a PPQ. If submitting a PPQ, Offerors shall request customer POC’s to complete past performance questionnaires on their behalf. See questionnaire template in Section J. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires shall be e-mailed directly from the client (POC/COR) to vivian.m.truman2.civ@us.navy.mil on or prior to the closing date of this solicitation.

Questionnaires received after the due date for submission of proposals may not be considered.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

VOLUME III – FACTOR 3 – PRICE

The Cover Page shall include:

Solicitation Number Requirement Name Business Point of Contact – Name, Email, Phone Technical Point of Contact – Name, Email, Phone Cage Code and Unique Entity Identifier Number for offeror and proposed subcontractors If an affiliate per SeaPort CONOPS Affiliate Rule, state as such Name of any/all subcontractors

Pricing Summary Sheet – Prime - Excel – Includes ONR Service Contract Metrics aka Tripwire and Section B Fill Ins

Pricing Narrative Form – Includes Prime’s Compliance with FAR 52.219-14, Calculation of SeaPort Rate Caps, Prime’s Analysis of Subcontractor Proposal

Subcontractor Submissions

Section B Fill Ins (Excel)

ONR is no longer using Seaport. As such, the offeror will not fill in the labor rates in Seaport Section B. As such, the offeror will be required to submit Section B fill-ins which is included in the price volume (Excel). Offerors shall propose the exact Not-to-Exceed amount(s) established for the reimbursable Other Direct Costs (ODC) CLINs without burdens, profit, fee, handling charges, general and administrative costs, overhead, or any other indirect cost and shall not offer any higher than the amounts. The Section B fill-ins must match the amounts proposed in Pricing Spreadsheet or the Price volume may be considered incomplete and non-responsive, rendering the prime’s proposal ineligible for award.

Pricing Summary Sheet (Excel) – Prime

Offerors shall bid the Not-to-Exceed amount of $100,000 for each Other Direct Costs (Travel/Misc) (ODC). The NTE amount shall be proposed inclusive of G&A if required by the offeror’s accounting practices, but without profit, fee, or any other burdens. Offerors shall not propose any higher or lower ODC amounts.

Offerors shall complete the Pricing Spreadsheet in Section J.

The price proposal submitted by offerors shall consist of the following: a general worksheet, a total amount worksheet, separate worksheets for each of the five (5) years of contract performance (Base through O-IV). To evaluate the option to extend services (FAR 52.217-8) CLINs, one-half of the proposed price for the last year of the performance period shall be added to the Total Evaluated Cost. No offeror input on the Excel form is required.

All formulas shall remain in the spreadsheet(s), so as to allow for the Government’s evaluation of cost. For example, the Government should be able to change a cell containing a specific labor rate for an individual and have the change flow through the spreadsheet automatically. However, offerors may revise the formulas to accurately reflect their proposed accounting practices. If offerors revise the formulas, the offeror must provide a detailed narrative explaining the changes made to formulas and the worksheet(s) impacted by the changes. Offerors who manipulate formulas without a narrative explanation of what is revised may be ineligible for award.

Any proposal that does not contain subcontractor price information (if applicable) may be considered incomplete and non-responsive, rendering the prime’s proposal ineligible for award.

ONR Service Contract Metrics (Excel)

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) has established service contracting tripwires for service contracts funded and executed at ONR. The service contracting tripwire applicable to the base and all option periods for this solicitation is a fully burdened labor rate of $250 per hour. This tripwire applies to prime, subcontract, and consultant labor inclusive of all subcontractor, consultant, and prime contractor indirect costs and applicable fee or profit.

Offerors and their subcontractors must provide their fully burdened labor rate computations, via a separate worksheet within the Pricing Spreadsheet (see Section J) which shall be labeled "Tripwire Data". The worksheet will demonstrate how the fully burdened proposed labor rate(s) were computed by the offeror and subcontractor(s) in order to show compliance or non-compliance with ONR’s service contracting tripwire requirement. This separate worksheet can be provided in contractor format and must be added to the Pricing Spreadsheet (see Section J) by the offeror and subcontractor in each of their respective cost proposal spreadsheets.

Offers and subcontractors who propose fully burdened labor rates in excess of $250 per hour for the base and option periods identified within this solicitation must provide a written narrative to support the rationale for proposing fully burdened labor rates in excess of $250 per hour. Offerors and subcontractors who propose fully burdened labor rates in excess of $250 per hour shall be subject to additional analysis and a higher level of review to assess cost/price reasonableness.

Pricing Narrative Form – Prime (Use the Section J, Pricing Narrative Form) All primes shall fill out Pricing Narrative Sheet (See Section J).

Prime’s Compliance with FAR 52.219-14 (Use the Section J, Pricing Narrative Form) Prime offerors are responsible for providing the applicable certification or assurance in accordance with FAR 52.219-14, that at least 50% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern. Prime offerors must demonstrate in the cost volume narrative how this will be accomplished; however, if the prime and subcontractor are similarly situated they should state as such in the document.

Calculation of SeaPort Rate Caps (Use the Section J, Pricing Narrative Form) Offerors shall detail how their proposal is compliant with any/all Seaport IDIQ contract rate caps as they apply.

Prime’s Analysis of Subcontractor Proposal (Use the Section J, Pricing Narrative Form) The prime contractor shall include a detailed analysis of their proposed subcontractor(s) and/or consultants to determine the price the prime has included is fair and reasonable. At a minimum, this should include how the subcontractor(s) and/or consultants were selected, the type of contract they will be awarded, and analysis of the overall price. Subcontractor(s) and/or consultants that are selected on a sole source basis require additional scrutiny from the prime contractor. Primes that fail to provide this information, or do not perform an adequate analysis may be deemed to be non compliant with the solicitation and removed from consideration.

Applicability of Documents to Proposed Subcontractors and Consultants All proposed subcontractors and/or consultants shall use all pricing documents which are consistent with the prime offeror. See Section J for reference. Any proposal that does not contain subcontractor price information (if applicable) may be considered incomplete and non-responsive, rendering the prime’s proposal ineligible for award.

ONR Pre Award Acquisition Survey

Vendors are encouraged to take a survey about the ONR pre award process. The link is:

https://forms.osi.apps.mil/r/f3w1LQcAen?origin=lprLink

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. GENERAL NOTICES

The Government intends to award a task order to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements and is determined to be the best value to the Government. The evaluation of an offeror’s proposal will be conducted using the procedures outlined in this solicitation and the process outlined in the most recent SeaPort ConOps version.

i. “Best Value” means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement (FAR 2.101). In making this decision, the Government is more concerned with obtaining offers demonstrating superior merit under the non-cost evaluation factors at a reasonable price than with making an award to the Offeror with the lowest proposed price. Accordingly, the Government may be willing to pay a reasonable premium for a proposal offering superior merit under the non-cost factors. The determination of a reasonable premium rests with the Selection Official.

ii. Although the Government may waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received, the failure to comply with terms and conditions of the solicitation may adversely impact the Offeror’s evaluation results, and could result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award.

iii. Any proposal determined to have an existing organizational conflict of interest (OCI) pertaining to the prime or any of the proposed subcontractors may be removed from further consideration for award at any point during the evaluation. Task order award will only be made to an Offeror that has no organizational conflicts of interest as defined in FAR Subpart 9.5 or has provided a satisfactory mitigation plan, as determined by the Government.

iv. The evaluation of an offeror’s proposal shall be done initially with a compliance review to ascertain if offerors have met the compliance requirements. Only those offerors who meet the compliance requirements will be evaluated. Should an offeror not meet the compliance requirements, the Government is NOT required to notify the offeror they will not be evaluated.

v. While OCI is not an evaluation factor, it is analyzed to determine OCI risk. Any proposal determined to have an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) pertaining to the prime or any of the proposed subcontractors may be removed from further consideration for award at any point during the evaluation. Task order award will only be made to an Offeror that has no organizational conflicts of interest as defined in FAR Subpart 9.5 or has provided a satisfactory mitigation plan. The determination regarding the satisfactory nature of the mitigation plan is determined by the Government.

vi. Offerors are hereby notified that formal source selection procedures DO NOT apply. Per SeaPort CONOPS, the source selection adjectival ratings are used for evaluation purposes; however, all offerors are hereby notified that this acquisition is subject to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 16.5 and FAR part 15.3 procedures DO NOT apply. Because this streamlined evaluation and award is not using the formal source selection procedures of FAR Subpart 15.3, procedures such as a competitive range determination, pre- award notifications to Offerors excluded from a competitive range, and requesting final proposal revisions from all Offerors included within a competitive range are not required. The identification of terminology similar to use in FAR Subpart 15.3, the Government’s questions and comments, and the Offeror’s answers and responses do not constitute discussions, clarifications, communications, or exchanges as used in FAR Subpart 15.3. Offerors should also be aware that the definition(s) of strength, weakness, significant weakness, etc. are found in the most current DoD Source Selection Guide.

vii. The evaluation of an offeror’s proposal shall be done initially with a compliance review to ascertain if offerors have met the compliance requirements. Only those offerors who meet the compliance requirements will be evaluated. Should an offeror not meet the compliance requirements, the Government is NOT required to notify the offeror they will not be evaluated.

viii. An unacceptable rating under any of the sub-factors under Technical Factor X will result in an overall unacceptable rating for Technical Factor X. In the event that the first sub-factor is unacceptable the Government will cease the evaluation and the offeror shall be deemed to be unacceptable.

2. EVALUATION PHASES

Proposals that are compliant with the solicitation shall then be reviewed in phases:

i. Phase I: will evaluate the Technical Proposal /Factor 1. Only those proposals rated Acceptable, Good, or Outstanding will move on to the Past Performance evaluation. Should a proposal be rated Unacceptable under one Sub-Factor of the Technical Proposal Factor, the proposal shall be rated Unacceptable overall for Factor 1 (Technical Proposal).

ii. Phase II: will evaluate the Past Performance factor. Only those proposals rated Neutral, Satisfactory, or Substantial Confidence for Past Performance will move on to Phase III. Should a proposal be rated Unacceptable under either Factor 1 (Technical Proposal) or Factor 2 (Past Performance) the entire proposal shall be rated unacceptable.

iii. Phase III: will consist of a Price Analysis evaluation of only those proposals who are rated in Phases I and II shall undergo this analysis.

3. INTERCHANGES

The Government intends to make award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting interchanges; therefore, each offer’s proposal should contain the Offerors best terms. In the event interchanges are required, and after the Government has afforded all Offerors under the multiple-award contract a fair opportunity to submit an offer and have that offer fairly considered, the Selection Official may take or direct one or more of the following actions:

i. Award to the Offeror whose submission conforms to the solicitation requirements and is determined to be the best value for the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation methodology contained in the Basis for Award; OR

ii. Enter Interchanges with only one Offeror whose proposal is determined to be the most highly qualified in non-price factors after an initial evaluation despite any weaknesses that may exist with that proposal, where other Offerors do not have a reasonable prospect for award; OR

iii. Enter Interchanges with more than one Offeror whose proposals are determined to be the most highly qualified in non-price factors after an initial evaluation despite any weaknesses that may exist with that proposal, where other Offerors do not have a reasonable prospect for award; OR

iv. Not make an award to any Offeror.

The Government intends to make award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting interchanges; therefore, each offer’s proposal should contain the Offerors best terms.

The Government reserves the right to hold interchanges if, during the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Interchanges are fluid interaction(s) between the Government and Offerors that shall address any aspect of the proposal and may or may not be documented in real time.

v. Should Interchanges be required, the Selection Official shall determine if the Interchanges will occur with one or more than one Offeror. The Selection Official will determine if Interchanges are needed only after a comprehensive evaluation of all Factors (Technical, Past Performance, and Price). Interchanges with the offerors may focus on one or more than one factor.

Interchanges with Only One Offeror - Should the Selection Official determine only one Offeror requires interchanges, the Government will enter interchanges with only that Offeror after a comprehensive evaluation of all Factors (Technical, Past Performance, and Price) have been completed. This will be done via submission of an Interchange Notice to only that Offeror.

If the Government enters interchanges with only one Offeror, and the parties cannot successfully resolve outstanding issues, it is at the sole discretion of the Selection Official to cease interchanges with that Offeror. The offeror will be notified that interchanges have concluded. The Selection Official may then engage in interchanges with the next eligible Offeror. This process will continue until an agreement is successfully reached on all factors. In the event that an agreement cannot be made between the Offeror and the Government, the Government reserves the right to end Interchanges with the Offeror and proceed to initiate Interchanges with another Offeror(s).The offeror will be notified that interchanges have concluded.

If interchanges are concluded with no agreement reached, offerors are notified that no pre award debriefs will be provided.

Interchanges with More Than One Offeror - Should the Selection Official determine more than one Offeror requires interchanges, the Government will enter interchanges with those Offerors after a comprehensive evaluation of all Factors (Technical, Past Performance, and Price) have been completed. This will be done via submission of an Interchange Notice to multiple Offerors. The initial Interchange Notices will focus on all factors.

The Government may continue to have Interchanges with all Offerors or select only a certain number of Offerors to continue Interchanges until an agreement is successfully reached.

Should the Government cease interchanges with an Offeror, the Offeror will be notified that Interchanges have concluded. As noted above, no pre award debriefs will be provided.

4. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED/WEIGHTING

The evaluation factors will be as follows:

1. Factor 1 – Technical Proposal

a. Sub-Factor 1.1 – Technical Capability and Approach

b. Sub-Factor 1.2 – Key Personnel Qualifications

c. Sub-Factor 1.3 – Management, Operations, and Maintenance Support

2. Factor 2 - Past Performance

3. Factor 3 – Price Factors are listed in descending order of importance. Factor 1 is significantly more important than Factor 2. Factor 2 is more important that Factor 3.

Factor 1 includes three sub-factors. Sub-Factor 1.1 is more important than Sub-Factor 1.2. Sub-Factor 1.2 is more important than Sub-Factor 1.3.

Offerors are hereby notified that the closer the ratings are in Factors 1 and 2, the more important Factor 3 becomes.

5. EVALUATION of Subfactor 1.1 – Technical Capability and Approach The Government shall review the offerors response to this sub-factor in order to determine if the proposed approach meets the minimum requirements.

Offerors that meet the minimum requirements will be rated as ACCEPTABLE.

Offerors that are able to demonstrate how their approach includes a cost and/or time saving solution(s) to the Government may be rated as higher than ACCEPTABLE.

6. EVALUATION of Subfactor 1.2 – Key Personnel Qualifications The Government shall review the offerors response to this sub-factor in order to determine if the proposed Key Personnel meet the minimum requirements.

All personnel must meet the minimum qualifications in Section C to receive at least an acceptable rating for this factor.

Personnel with one (1) or more desired qualifications the Government may rate higher than acceptable.

A failure of proposed Key Personnel to meet the minimum requirements, as supported by the resume, will result in a deficiency and an overall Factor rating of Unacceptable.

Refer to Section C for each labor category regarding proposed Personnel Requirements & qualifications.

Resumes are considered a material part of the proposal. Resumes for proposed, contingent Key Personnel that do not include a statement signed by the individual providing authorization to the offeror to include their resume in response to this solicitation will lead to an “unacceptable” rating. The failure to submit letters of intent if required will result in an “Unacceptable” rating.

7. EVALUATION of Subfactor 1.3 – Management, Operations, and Maintenance Support The Government shall review the offerors response to this sub-factor in order to determine if the proposed approach meets the minimum requirements.

Offerors that meet the minimum requirements will be rated as ACCEPTABLE.

Offerors who propose an approach which can reduce cost, reduce re work, and offer benefits to the Government may be rated above ACCEPTABLE.

Offerors shall demonstrate their understanding of the requirements and tasks for this solicitation. All of the requirements and tasks specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your company and proposed subcontractors (if applicable) will perform all the requirements and tasks specified in the solicitation. Offerors shall not merely copy, paste, rephrase or restate the requirements and tasks specified in the solicitation; such will result in an “unacceptable” evaluation rating.

The Technical Evaluation Board will evaluate Factor 1 and each sub-factor thereunder, using the following rating definitions:

An unacceptable rating under any of the sub-factors under Factor 1 will result in an overall unacceptable rating for Factor 1.

8. EVALUATION OF FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE – FACTOR 2, VOLUME III:

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 furnishing services that meet the contract’s requirements. A performance relevancy rating and a performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror’s recent and relevant past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. Past performance information about the offeror as a prime contractor is considered more significant and given more weight in the past performance evaluation.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration will be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings. In conducting a performance relevancy assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the following ratings:

The second aspect to the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers and other sources on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

The Government will review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPAR), using all CAGE/UEI numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), System for Award Management (SAM) modules including information formerly found under Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting an overall performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the following ratings:

9. EVALUATION OF FACTOR 3 – PRICE (FIRM-FIXED-PRICE) – FACTOR 3, VOLUME IV:

Price analysis of proposed labor rates will be conducted using the techniques found in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i)-(vii).

Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated as follows.

i. Overall Price Proposal Evaluation: The Price proposal for proposed labor rates will be evaluated for the following:

a. Compliance: The Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Section L.

b. Unbalanced Pricing: The Offeror’s overall Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (see FAR 15.404-1(g)(1) through FAR 15.404-1(g)(3)).

c. Errors: The Offeror’s Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The Offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer via clarifications.

d. Total Evaluated Price: The Total Evaluated Price consists of summing the Offeror’s proposed fixed-price for the base year, the four (4)…