RFP N0018921R0038 Amendment 0001.pdf

N4027321RC007AD

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 P0001 is to provide Questions and Responses received.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 31

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 09-Jul-2021

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 N0018921R0038

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

17-Jun-2021

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 X is extended, 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 1 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

08-Jul-2021

CODE

NAVSUP FLC NORFOLK CONTRACTING

NORFOLK OFFICE

ATTN: S. BROWN

1968 GILBERT STREET, SUITE 600

NORFOLK VA 23511-3392

N00189 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N0018921R0038

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 15-Jul-2021 10:00 AM to 20-Jul-2021 10:00 AM.

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUMS

ADDENDUM TO FAR PROVISION 52.212-1 ENTITLED “INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS –

COMMERCIAL ITEMS”

I. GENERAL

In addition to FAR 52.212-1, “Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items” and any other instructions contained elsewhere in this solicitation, the following information is provided.

Offerors are required to submit their proposals in three (3) separate volumes as follows:

Volume I: Factor I – Technical

Sub-factor I: Material and Staffing Approach

Sub-factor II: Technical and Management Approach

Volume II: Factor II – Past Performance

Volume III: Factor III – Price Proposal

Volume I – Factor I – Technical

The technical approach proposal shall address the following sub-factors:

Sub-Factor I – Material and Staffing Approach

The Material and Staffing Approach shall demonstrate the offeror’s understanding of the material and personnel requirements of the PWS as well as its ability to provide the material and personnel in order to fulfill the tasks of the

PWS, specifically sections 5.0 and 7.0 of the PWS and sections 2.0 – 4.0 of Attachment 1 of the PWS. At a minimum, the Material and Staffing Approach should address the following:

The offeror’s plan for providing the materials (props) required in section 5.0 of the PWS and sections 3.0 and 4.0 of Attachment 1 of the PWS.

The offeror’s plan for providing the personnel required in section 7.0 of the PWS and section 2.0 of

Attachment 1 of the PWS. The offeror should also describe its approach for identifying, recruiting, preparing, training and retaining qualified personnel that demonstrates the offeror’s plan to minimize staff turnover

The offeror’s Material and Staffing approach should be discussed in sufficient detail to convince the Government that the offeror is capable of fully meeting the requirements of the PWS.

Offerors simply providing general statements or paraphrasing/parroting the PWS in whole or in any part shall result in a rating of unacceptable.

Sub-Factor II –Technical and Management Approach

The Technical and Management Approach shall demonstrate the offeror’s understanding of the training described in the PWS, as well as its ability to manage these training evolutions. At a minimum, the Technical and Management

Approach should address the following:

The offeror’s understanding of and familiarity with both the subject matter and the nature (prop/role player-based) of the training described in sections 8.0 and 9.0 of the PWS.

The offeror’s management processes that will:

o Provide for planning of task execution;

o Provide for the conduct of simultaneous training events in differing locations for differing

Echelons;

o Maintain the skills of its personnel in changing battlefield tactics and challenges facing NECC deployed forces; and o Provide a system for verifying and maintaining a high level of quality and safety to ensure the safe and successful completion of all tasks.

The offeror’s Technical and Management Approach should be discussed in sufficient detail to convince the

Government that the offeror is capable of fully meeting the requirements of the PWS.

Offerors simply providing general statements or paraphrasing/parroting the PWS in whole or in any part shall result in a rating of unacceptable.

***The Technical submission is limited to 30 pages***

Volume II – Factor II – Past Performance

To demonstrate its past performance, the offeror shall identify up to three (3) of its most relevant contracts performed within five (5) years of the solicitation issuance date. Those contracts must also reflect one year of completed performance by the closing date of the solicitation. Offerors shall provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the relevance of the contracts to the requirements of the solicitation.

For purposes of this solicitation, a contract is defined as a single contract or a single task order placed under an

ID/IQ contract, a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), or a Federal Supply Schedule. Offerors shall not submit the

IDIQ contract, FSS contract, or BPA itself as a reference. Offerors may submit a combination of no more than three

(3) delivery orders (DOs), task orders (TOs), technical direction letters (TDLs), and/or technical area tasks (TATs) placed under an ID/IQ or BPA as one of the three examples of past performance. Such a combination must also meet the requirements stated above: each individual example in the combination must have been performed within five (5) years of the solicitation issuance date and demonstrate at least one (1) year of completed performance by the closing date of the solicitation. If a combination of DOs, TOs, TDLs and or TATs are used as a past performance example, the offeror shall state the specific experience claimed, period of performance, and dollar value of each. A

Past Performance example that does not provide the level of detail required may not be evaluated. No more than one combination of DOs, TOs, TDLs and or TATs is permitted in the past performance submittal. One (1) year of completed performance is defined as twelve (12) consecutive months of performance. References with less than twelve (12) consecutive months of service will not be considered.

If a proposed subcontractor’s past performance is provided as part of the three (3) of its most relevant contracts or efforts, the percentage and type of work to be done by the subcontractor on the solicitation requirement must be stated. The offeror’s submittal shall also detail clearly the aspects of the work in the solicitation that the subcontractor is proposed to perform. A Past Performance example which does not detail clearly the aspects of the work in the solicitation that the subcontractor is proposed to perform may not be evaluated.

If the prime offeror or intended subcontractor/partner submits a past performance example in which it served as a subcontractor, the prime/sub/partner shall detail clearly the work that it performed and the magnitude (dollar value) of that subcontracted work only. A Past Performance example that does not differentiate between the overall contract effort and the subcontractor effort may not be evaluated.

The past performance of subcontractors who will be performing major or critical aspects of the solicitation will be considered as highly as a prime contractor’s past performance.

Failure of offerors to provide the required information and level of specificity may result in the contract reference not being evaluated. [With respect to joint ventures, the procuring activity will consider work done individually by each member of the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. Joint venture references must meet the temporal requirements described in ADDENDUM TO FAR PROVISION 52.212-1 (within five years and a year of completed performance). Additionally, if a joint venture member submits a past performance reference, the joint venture member shall detail clearly the work that it performed in that effort and the magnitude (dollar value) of that work. A reference that does not differentiate between the overall contract effort and the joint venture member’s effort for that reference may not be evaluated. The past performance of a joint venture member who will be performing major or critical aspects of the solicitation will be considered as highly as the joint venture’s past performance.]

The offeror shall complete a “Past Performance Information Form” for each reference submitted. The form is an attachment to the solicitation.

In addition to the information requested above, offerors shall contact their past performance references and request that each reference complete the Past Performance Report Form attached to the solicitation and e-mail the completed survey form directly to Renee Turner at renee.turner2@navy.mil and Sherell Brownmailto: at sherell.brown@navy.mil by the DUE DATE OF THIS SOLICITATION. The Government reserves the right to consider past performance report forms received after the due date of the solicitation and to contact references for verification or additional information.

***The Past Performance submission is limited to 12 pages***

Volume III – Factor III – Price:

This volume shall include the following completed solicitation documents and a complete and detailed price breakdown with all supporting documentation. The pricing information shall be completed in accordance with the following:

A complete and signed Standard Form 1449, “Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items” and executed copy of amendments, if applicable.

For the purpose of preparing a price proposal, the offeror shall assume that the period of performance consists of a five-year ordering period and a six month option to extend in accordance with FAR 52.217-8.

Offerors shall use the periods established in the Schedule.

A completed “Civilians in the Battlefield Contract Pricing” spreadsheet provided as an attachment of the

RFP. The pricing spreadsheet will indicate pricing information for each option year plus FAR 52.217-8, as well as the total for all years. The price for the services shown in this spreadsheet shall include all fully burdened labor required to provide services. The firm-fixed price annual rates proposed in the pricing spreadsheet will be incorporated into the resultant contract.

All supplemental information to support the proposed price including labor mix and level of effort (LOE) by labor category, and fully burdened per hour labor rates, to include subcontractor’s supplemental pricing information in the same format, travel, etc. (ie: MS excel).

Unless completed in System for Award Management (SAM), “Representations, Certifications and Other

Statements of Offerors” certification completed by the offeror.

Travel and Shipping costs are anticipated. Therefore, the Government has included travel and shipping costs for each period of performance. All Offerors are to propose the travel and shipping amounts as identified in the table below for all identified travel and shipping CLINs, base and option periods.

Offerors shall use the following Government-estimated travel and shipping amounts in preparing their price proposal:

mailto:renee.turner2@navy.mil mailto:

mailto:sherell.brown@navy.mil

Year Travel & Shipping

Ordering Year One $999,046.00

Ordering Year Two $1,019,026.92

Ordering Year Three $1,039,407.46

Ordering Year Four $1,060,195.61

Ordering Year Five $1,081,399.52

FAR 52.217-8 $540,699.76

***The price section is not page-limited, but is strictly limited to the requested information and supporting documentation only. No price information shall be contained in any other part of the proposal.***

IMPORTANT NOTES:

(1) In order to be eligible for award, the Offeror shall be an 8(a) program participant under NAICS 711190.

(2) Offerors shall respond to all requirements of the solicitation document. Offerors are cautioned not to alter the solicitation. Hand-carried proposals are not authorized and will not be accepted. Each page of each copy shall be affixed with the following legend:

Source Selection Information

See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

(3) In the event that any person who is not a bona fide employee of the offeror participated in the creation, formulation, or writing of any portion of the proposal, a certificate to this effect shall be included in the proposal which shall be signed by an officer of the offeror. Such certificate shall identify the name of the person who is not a bona fide employee, that person’s employment capacity, the name of the person’s firm, the relationship of that firm to the offeror, and the portion of the proposal in which the person participated.

(4) In order to ensure that all questions submitted by potential offerors are answered prior to the solicitation closing date, all questions concerning the solicitation should be submitted via e-mail to Renee Turner at renee.turner2@navy.mil and Sherell Brown at sherell.brown@navy.mil NO LATER THAN 10:00 AM, Eastern Standard Time (EST), on 01 July 2021. The Government reserves the right not to respond to any questions received concerning this solicitation after the questions receipt date above. Accordingly, offerors are encouraged to carefully review all solicitation requirements and submit questions to the

Government early in the proposal timeframe.

(5) Proposals are to be submitted via email to Renee Turner at renee.turner2@navy.mil and Sherell Brown at sherell.brown@navy.mil in the volumes and format as identified in this section. Proposals are due no later than the closing date and time identified on the front page of the solicitation. Offerors should include the following information in the Subject Line of their electronic submission:

Proposal - N0018921R0038 – (Name of Offeror) – (“Prime” or “Sub”) – Email (#) of (#)]]

II. REQUIREMENTS FOR FORMAT OF PROPOSAL CONTENT

(1) Introduction and Purpose: This section specifies the format that offerors shall use in this request for proposals

(RFP). The intent is not to restrict offerors in the manner in which they will perform the work, but rather to ensure a certain degree of uniformity in the format of the responses for evaluation purposes.

(2) Each volume should contain the following items in addition to the other information required by this solicitation:

The cover should indicate the following:

Title of the proposal mailto:renee.turner2@navy.mil

Volume number (I, II, or III)

Solicitation number

Name and address of offeror, point of contact information (name, phone number, and email address), CAGE code, DUNS number, and applicable tax identification number (TIN)

Proposal validity period for 180 days from solicitation closing

Table of Contents: The table of contents should provide sufficient detail as to allow the important elements to be easily located.

(3) Requirements for Style: Each offeror shall submit a proposal that clearly and concisely describes and defines the offeror’s response to the requirements contained in the solicitation. Unnecessary elaboration or other presentations beyond that, sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are not desired. Elaborate artwork, expensive paper or bindings, and expensive visual or other presentation aids are neither necessary nor desired. The proposal shall contain all the pertinent information in sufficient detail in the one area of the proposal where it contributes most critically to the discussion of the same information. When necessary, offerors shall refer to the initial discussion and identify its location within the submitted proposal.

(4) Proposal Page Limitations:

Title Required Format Page Limit*

Volume I: Factor I - Technical Microsoft Word 30 pages

Volume II: Factor II - Past Performance Microsoft Word 12 pages

Volume III: Factor III - Price Proposal Microsoft Word/Excel No limit

All submission and attachments shall be in Microsoft Office Word, with the exception of the Price Proposal, which may include a Microsoft Excel submission. Submissions are page limited to the maximum number of pages as defined below. These page limitations are inclusive of the executive summary and any charts, diagrams, and/or other graphics. Graphics (including tables) in the proposal may use an alternative font with 8-point size type or larger.

Each “page” is defined as one sheet, 8 ½" x 11", with at least one inch margins on all sides, using a font with a point size of 12 or greater (e.g., "Times New Roman" style with 12-point font). Lines shall, at a minimum, be single-spaced in Microsoft Word with Microsoft Word Normal character spacing. Pages shall be consecutively numbered.

Multiple pages, double pages, two-sided pages, or foldouts will count as an equivalent number of 8 ½" x 11" pages.

The offeror is permitted to submit no more than one page for each of the following, which will not be included in the page count: a cover sheet, list of tables, list of figures, compliance matrix, table of contents, tabs, and dividers. The

Offeror shall be responsible for ensuring that their electronic proposals are virus free. Pages submitted in excess of the page limitations described above will not be evaluated.

*Page limits represent the maximum pages the Government will evaluate and are not construed as de facto standards for the amount of material expected in the proposal.

(End of FAR provision 52.212-1 Addendum)

ADDENDUM TO FAR PROVISION 52.212-2 ENTITLED “EVALUATION– COMMERCIAL ITEMS”

The Government intends to award multiple Firm Fixed Priced (FFP), Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type contracts to the responsible offerors whose proposals represent the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors and sub-factors in the solicitation. The offeror’s proposal shall be in the form prescribed by, and shall contain a response to each of the areas identified in, solicitation provision FAR 52.212-1 entitled “Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items” and its Addendum. Although the Government intends to award up to two (2) contracts, but not more than five (5) contracts, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award to any number of contracts less than five (5), to include awarding only one (1) contract. The evaluation and award are being conducted in accordance with FAR Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, and FAR Part 15, Contracting by

Negotiation, FAR Subpart 16.5, Indefinite-Delivery Contracts; and FAR Subpart 19.8, The 8(a) Program.

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions and does not anticipate establishment of a competitive range. Accordingly, each offeror should submit its most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government, nonetheless, reserves the right to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

The Government will conduct a best-value source selection process in accordance with FAR 15.101-1. The evaluation of proposals will consider the Non-Price Proposal to be more important than the Price Proposal. Within the Non-Price Proposal, Factor I, (Technical) is considered more important than Factor II, (Past Performance).

Within the Technical Factor, the Material and Staffing Approach sub-factor is considered more important than the

Technical and Management Approach sub-factor.

1. Non-Price Proposal Evaluation Criteria.

The Non-Price proposal is comprised of the following Factors: Technical and Past Performance as follows:

Evaluation of Factor I: Technical

The table identified below entitled “Technical Ratings Table” will be utilized for the assignment of ratings for

Factor I.

Sub-Factor I – Material and Staffing Approach

The offeror will be evaluated on its ability to demonstrate its understanding of and capability to successfully fulfill the tasks of the PWS, specifically sections 5.0 and 7.0 of the PWS and sections 2.0 – 4.0 of Attachment 1 of the

PWS. The offeror’s Material and Staffing Approach will be evaluated on its feasibility, its comprehensiveness, and the degree to which the offeror demonstrates how it will successfully accomplish the requirements of the PWS.

Sub-Factor II – Technical and Management Approach

The offeror will be evaluated on its ability to demonstrate its understanding of the training and its capability to successfully manage the training tasks of the PWS as described in sections 8.0 and 9.0 of the PWS. The offeror’s

Technical and Management Approach will be evaluated on its feasibility, its comprehensiveness, and the degree to which the offeror demonstrates how it will successfully accomplish the requirements of the PWS.

The Technical factor evaluation will be based on each offeror’s response to the requirements of FAR 52.212-1

“Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items” and its Addendum included in the solicitation. In the execution of the evaluations, both the offeror’s approach to meeting the Government’s requirements as defined in the solicitation and the risk related to its proposed approach will be assessed.

The purpose of the Technical factor is to assess the offeror’s proposed approach to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The evaluation of risk is related to the assessment of the offeror’s proposed approach. Risk assesses the degree to which the offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

A combined Technical/Risk Rating will be utilized in the evaluation of Factor I. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations will utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in the Technical Ratings Table and the risk descriptions in the Risk Descriptions Table below. The overall assigned technical factor and sub-factor ratings will be from the Combined

Technical/Risk Ratings Table.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Table

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

Note: An offeror that receives a “Marginal” rating for any technical factor or sub-factor is not eligible for award if award is made on initial offers. Offerors that receive a “Marginal” rating are considered susceptible to correction if the contracting officer determines that an exchange (pursuant to FAR 15.306) is appropriate and said exchange is conducted. An offeror that receives a rating of “Unacceptable” in any technical factor or sub-factor is not awardable and will not be further evaluated.

Risk Description Table

Type of Risk Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

DEFINITIONS:

Strength - An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness - A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness - A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency - 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.

Risk – (as it pertains to source selection) The potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the Non-Price technical factor or its sub-factors may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Evaluation of Factor II: Past Performance

The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to meet the contract’s requirements based on the quality of a demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. These are combined to establish a single performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

Past Performance Recency: Recency is the first aspect of the past performance evaluation and is the time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. Recency is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. For purposes of this solicitation, recent past performance is performance that has taken place within five (5) years of the issuance date of this solicitation. Performance outside of this stated period will not be considered for evaluation purposes.

Past Performance Relevancy: Regarding relevancy, each past performance reference under each offeror’s Past

Performance submission will be evaluated to determine its scope and magnitude relative to the instant requirement.

The following definitions will apply to this evaluation:

● Scope: Experience in the areas described in the PWS.

● Magnitude: The similarity of the dollar value of actually performed work that exists between the PWS and the offeror’s referenced contracts during the stated five-year period established by the solicitation.

The relevancy rating assigned to each past performance reference will be considered in determining the weight to be given to that reference in the overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment. References determined to be

“Not Relevant” will not be further considered. Similarly, the quality of performance under a past performance reference that has no relevance to the instant requirement will not be considered in the overall assessment of past performance confidence. In determining the rating for the past performance factor, past performance of greater relevancy will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Past Performance Quality: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, including general trends and usefulness of the information, and will incorporate this into the performance confidence assessment.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment: The overall assigned rating for past performance will be the Past

Performance Confidence Assessment rating, defined in the table below. The assignment of this rating will be based on the overall quality of the recent and relevant past performance and will also consider the source of the information, the context of the data, and general trends in the offeror’s performance. The quality of performance under a past performance reference that that has no relevance to the instant requirement will not be considered in the overall assessment of past performance confidence. Evaluation will focus only on work already performed. Work yet-to-be performed and work not reflecting one year of completed performance by the solicitation closing date will not be considered. One year of completed performance is defined as twelve-months of continued performance.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the past performance factor. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral Confidence.” Although an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance may not be rated favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Government may determine that a “Substantial

Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating provides better value to the Government than a

“Neutral Confidence” past performance rating.

In order to evaluate Past Performance, the Government may also utilize existing data sources, including the

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity

Information System (FAPIIS), the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases;

communication with points of contact in the offeror’s customer’s organization, which could include private sector requirements and contracts personnel, Administrative Contracting Officers, Defense Contract Management Agency

(DCMA) personnel, Procuring Contracting Officers, Contracting Officer’s Representatives, and other Government activity requirements personnel. The Government may verify past performance information. The Government may contact some or all of the references provided, as appropriate, and may collect information through questionnaires, telephone interviews, and existing data sources. The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources, including sources outside of the Government. This information will be used for the evaluation of past performance.

The past performance factor evaluation and past performance confidence assessment rating is separate and distinct from the contracting officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the relative capability of the offeror and other competitors to successfully meet the requirements of the solicitation. The Past Performance Relevancy Ratings are listed in the Past Performance

Relevancy Rating Table below:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Table

Rating Description

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

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

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

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

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Table

Rating Description

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

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

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

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

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

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

Note: A rating of “Limited Confidence” for the past performance factor means that the offeror’s proposal is not awardable without a change or changes to the offeror’s proposal. A proposal that includes a “Limited Confidence” rating is considered to be susceptible to correction if the contracting officer determines that an exchange is appropriate and said exchange is conducted. A rating of “No Confidence” for the past performance factor means that the offeror’s proposal is not awardable and is not susceptible to correction.

Overall Non-Price Proposal Rating

Upon completion of the Non-price Factor evaluation, a composite rating for the overall Non-Price Factor will be assigned to each offeror’s proposal. The assignment of this overall rating will take into consideration the comparative weightings of Technical and Past Performance. The ratings listed in “Combined Technical/Risk

Ratings Table”, will be used.

Evaluation of Factor III: Price

The Government will evaluate price proposals in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), Proposal Analysis. The

Government may evaluate any and all information submitted by the offeror to support the reasonableness of the cost/prices proposed. The method of evaluation used by the contracting officer is solely within the discretion of the contracting officer.

Offeror’s price will be evaluated based on the price included in the “Schedule of Supplies/Services.” The price contained in the “Schedule of Supplies/Services” shall be derived from completing the “Civilians in the Battlefield

Contract Pricing” spreadsheet, included within this document.

If the offeror’s proposal is determined to be unacceptable in any of the non-price evaluation factors, the price proposal will not be evaluated by the contracting officer. The Government reserves the right to award the contract to other than the lowest priced offeror.

Although price is not the most important evaluation factor, it has the potential to become more significant during the evaluation process. The degree of importance of price will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based. The importance of price will also increase when a proposal’s price is so significantly high as to diminish the value to the Government that might be gained under the other aspects of the offer. If, at any stage of the evaluation, all offerors are determined to have submitted equal, or virtually equal, non-price proposals, price could become the factor in determining which offeror will receive the award.

Options, to include FAR clause 52.217-8, will be evaluated pursuant to solicitation provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Evaluation of Travel and Shipping

The dollar values provided in solicitation provision FAR 52.212-1 entitled “Instructions to Offerors-Commercial

Items” and its Addendum, under I General, Volume III: Factor III - Price Proposal, in regards to Travel and

Shipping have been predetermined by the acquiring command, and shall be utilized for evaluation purposes in determining the total price for the contract.

Offerors responding to this solicitation are advised that, prior to award, the government may request Offerors to submit information/data to support price reasonableness such as copies of paid invoices for the same or similar items, sales history for the same or similar items, price list with effective date and/or copies of catalog pages along with any applicable discounts. Failure to submit the requested information may result in disqualification of the submitted proposal.

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of FAR provision 52.212-2 Addendum)

ADDENDUM TO FAR CLAUSE 52.216-18 ENTITLED “ORDERING”

ORDERING INSTRUCTIONS

a. Ordering: Services to be furnished under this contract shall be furnished at such times as ordered by the issuance of Task Orders (TOs) on DD Form 1155 by the Ordering Officer. All orders issued hereunder are subject to the terms and conditions of this contract. This contract shall control in the event of conflict with any TO. When mailed, a TO shall be “issued” for purpose of this contract at the time the Government deposits the order in the mail, or, if transmitted by other means, when physically delivered to the Contractor.

b. Ordering Procedures:

(1) TOs issued shall include, but not be limited to the following information:

(a) date of order

(b) contract and order number

(c) appropriation and accounting data

(d) item number and description of the services to be performed, period of performance, quantity, and unit price or estimated cost or fee

(e) DD Form 254 (contract Security Classification Spec), if applicable

(f) exact place of pickup and delivery.

(g) the inspecting and accepting codes (as applicable).

(h) the fixed fee and applicable travel estimated amount or the ceiling price.

(j) any other pertinent information

c. Unilateral Orders issued under an urgent requirement. TOs under this contract will ordinarily be issued after both parties agree on all terms. If the parties fail to agree, the Ordering Officer may require the Contractor to perform and any disagreement shall be deemed a dispute within the meaning of the Disputes clause.

d. Cautionary Note. Nothing stated in the TO, in a quote, or in discussions thereto, can modify the basic contract terms or regulations governing this contract.

e. Multiple Award Information.

After award of initial contract(s), task orders will be issued in accordance with the regulations set forth at FAR

16.505 and DFARS 216.505. Placement procedures for task and delivery orders will ensure that all awardees are given a fair opportunity to be considered for each task order in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(1) and DFARS

216.505-70(b) and (c), unless one of the exceptions set forth at FAR 16.505(b)(2) and DFARS 216.505-70(b)(1) and

(2) applies. Selection procedures will be tailored based on the nature of the task order requirements and selection may be based on a variety of methods including best value, lowest priced technically acceptable offer, or low price.

Where applicable each request for submission in conjunction with placing a task order will state the method of selection. Specific evaluation factors will be identified in the task order solicitation. Contractors may elect not to submit on all task order requirements. The contracting officer will consider past performance on earlier orders under the contract, including quality, timeliness and cost control.

(1) The Government may use oral proposals and streamlined procedures in selecting awardees. The

Ordering Officer need not contact each multiple awardee if the Ordering Officer has information available to ensure that each awardee is fairly considered.

(2) Awardees need not be given an opportunity to be considered for a particular Task Order in excess of $3,000.00 under multiple Task Order contracts if the Ordering Officer determines that:

(i) The agency needs for such services are of such urgency that providing such opportunity would result in unacceptable delays;

(ii) Only one such Contractor is capable of providing such services required at the level of quality required because the services ordered are unique or highly specialized;

(iii) The Task Order should be issued on a sole source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency as a logical follow-on to a Task Order already issued under the contract, provided that all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original Task Order;

or

(iv) It is necessary to place a Task Order to satisfy a minimum guarantee;

(v) The Ordering Officer determines in writing that it is in the best interest of the Government to do so.

f. Minimum Guarantee The minimum guarantee for this contract is $5,000.00 per contract awarded. The

Government is NOT obligated to procure more than the minimum guarantee.

g. Contract Ceiling. The ceiling is established as follows and shall not be exceeded without the written approval of the Contracting Officer:

$14,000,000.00

(End of FAR clause 52.216-18 Addendum)

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS)

for

Civilians in the Battlefield training support services

To Support The

U.S. NAVY EXPEDITIONARY COMBAT COMMAND (NECC)

1.0 BACKGROUND

Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC), established in January 2006, serves as the single functional command for the Navy’s expeditionary forces and as central management for the readiness, resources, staffing, training and equipping of those forces. NECC consolidates, aligns and integrates diverse expeditionary capabilities and combat support elements to create consistent expeditionary practices, procedures, requirements and logistics in the battle space.

To meet mission requirements, NECC must conduct a continuing series of pre-deployment training exercise events at various DOD and non-DOD training sites throughout the United States. Training units consist of different elements within the Naval Expeditionary Combat Command. The training support services shall require the employment of Subject Matter Experts in Foreign Languages, Combat Arms and Maritime/Riverine Specialists.

Role Players and Subject Matter Experts act as Foreign Language Speakers, Civilians on the Battlefield, insurgents, terrorists, military/police units and other personnel encountered in the intended Area of Operations.

1.1 SCOPE

This Performance Work Statement defines the Civilians in the Battlefield training support services and training aids for Combat Arms Units, Combat Support Units, and other U.S. Navy or host installation resources engaged in pre-deployment training to be provided by the Contractor on an individual Task Order basis. Training services include:

Role Players, Makeup Artists, Set Builders and Program Management; Training aids include: Vehicles, Store Front

Facings, Watercraft, Blank Weapons and other battlefield effects required to provide training environments that simulate real-world conditions.

2.0 ACRONYMS/DEFINATIONS

2.1 Acronyms

AAR After Action Review

ACOR Alternate Contracting Officer Representative

AO Area of Operation

BFA Blank Firing Adaptor

BFX Battlefield Effects Simulations

CBRN Chemical, Biological, Radiological-Nuclear

CE/SSE Combat Exploitation/Sensitive Site Exploitation

CONUS Continental United States

COR Contracting Officer Representative

COB Civilian on the Battlefield

CNO Chief of Naval Operations

CSG/ESG Carrier Strike Groups/Expeditionary Strike Groups

CVB Civilian Vehicle on the Battlefield

DOB Date of Birth

DOD Department of Defense

DON Department of Navy

ENDEX The end of an exercise, usually a performance-oriented exercise

EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal

FLS Foreign Language Specialist

FRP Fleet Response Plan

GFE Government Furnished Equipment

GFF Government Furnished Facilities

GFI Government Furnished Information

HME Home Made Explosives

HUMINT Human Derived Intelligence

IAW In Accordance With

IDS Intrusion Detection System

IED Improvised Explosive Device

JTR Joint Travel Regulations

KO Contracting Officer

MCM Mine Countermeasure

MSC Military Sealift Command

MSEL Master Scenario Event List:

NECC Navy Expeditionary Combat Command

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NLT No Later Than

NSWRONS Naval Special Warfare Squadrons

OEF Operation Enduring Freedom

OSHA Occupational Safety & Health Act

PCO Procuring Contracting Officer

PCS Permanent Change of Station

PMO Provost Marshall Office

POB Place of Birth

POC Point of Contact

POP Period of Performance

POV Privately Owned Vehicle

PTP Pre-Deployment Training Program

PWS Performance Work Statement

QA Quality Assurance

QASP Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

QCP Quality Control Plan

RP Role Player

RPG Rocket Propelled Grenade

SESAMS Special Effects Small Arms Marking System

SME Subject Matter Expert

SOF Special Operations Force

SOSO Stability Operations and Support Operations

SSN Social Security Number

SVBIED Stationary Vehicle Bourne IED

TA Technical Assistant

TPOC Technical Point of Contact

TSB Training Support Brigade

TDY Temporary Duty

VBIED Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device

2.2 Definitions

Each: A single unit of issue for one-time use. IEDs, ammo, and scent generating cartridges, for example, are identified as a one-time use items due to their inability for re-use once used, and therefore have a unit of issue as

“each”. When the government orders items categorized with this unit of issue, they will notify the Awardees how many of said items are to be provided for the training event. For example, if the government requires 100 bullets to be used during a 3 day training event, the government will order 100 bullets.

Each per training event: A single unit of issue for multi-time use items. Uniforms, scent generating machine, documentation, and other identified village props, for example, are identified as multi-time use items due to their ability to be re-used more than once during the course of the training event, and therefore have a unit of issue as

“each per training event”. When the government orders items categorized with this unit of issue, they will notify the

Awardees how many of said items are to be provided for the duration of the training event. For example, if 10 Role

Players are required for a period of 3 days, the government will order 10 uniforms to be provided. The government will not order 30 uniforms.

Per Day: A single unit of issue that represents a full day, consisting of a twenty-four hour period. While the unit may not be in full use during the entire 24-hour period, it must be available for use during the 24-hour period as required by the training event. When the government orders items categorized with this unit of issue, they will notify the Awardees how many of said items, and how many days, are to be provided for the training event.