Solicitation N0018922R0006 Amendment 1.pdf

N0006022SEPSFOLLOWON

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to answ er questions, update the PWS, update Instructions to Offerors, update Attachment 2, and extend the closing date.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 27

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Nov-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 N0018922R0006

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03-Nov-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

22-Nov-2021

CODE

NAVSUP FLC NORFOLK CONTRACTING

NORFOLK OFFICE ATTN: E. ALLEN

1968 GILBERT STREET STE 600

NORFOLK VA 235113392

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N0018922R0006

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 02-Dec-2021 12:00 PM to 06-Dec-2021 10:00 AM.

The following have been added by reference:

52.216-4 Economic Price Adjustment-Labor and Material JAN 2017

The following have been modified:

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment Number Description 1 Draft DD254 2 SEPS Contract Pricing Spreadsheet Updated 3 Past Performance Information Form 4 Past Performance Report Form 5 Questions and Answers

FAR CLAUSE 52.212-1 ADDENDUM

FAR CLAUSE 52.212-1 ADDENDUM, 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.

Initial proposals and any modifications thereto are to be submitted to the Contracting Officer on or before the closing date and time cited elsewhere in this solicitation. Faxes, mailed, and/or responses through SAM.gov or any method other than email are not acceptable.

Offerors are required to submit their proposals in four (4) separate volumes as follows:

Volume I: Factor I – Facility Clearance Volume II: Factor II – Technical Approach

Factor III – Small Business Participation Plan Factor IV – Past Performance

Volume III: Factor V– Price Volume IV: Factor VI – Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Not an Evaluation Factor)

IMPORTANT NOTES:

(1) Offerors shall respond to all requirements of the solicitation. Offerors are cautioned not to alter the solicitation.

(2) In the event 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.

(3) In order to ensure that all questions submitted by potential offerors are answered prior to the solicitation closing date, questions concerning the solicitation should be submitted via e-mail to Elysia Allen at elysia.allen@navy.mil, elysia.m.allen2.civ@us.navy.mil and Richard Mateljan at richard.a.mateljan@navy.mil, richard.a.mateljan.civ@us.navy.mil no later than 3:00 PM, Eastern Time (ET), on 16 November 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.

(4) Offerors are strongly encouraged to confirm their proposal was received PRIOR to the closing date and time. It is the responsibility of the offerors to ensure that the Contracting Office has received their entire proposal, with all attachments, PRIOR to the solicitation closing date and time. Only the documents received prior to the solicitation closing date and time will be evaluated.

(5) Offerors should include the following information in the Subject Line of their electronic submission Proposal - N0018922R0006 – (Name of Offeror) – (“Prime” or “Sub”) – Email (#) of (#)]]

Note: The SAM.gov website includes a “submit bid” button next to the solicitation number. The feature does not allow for submission of the detailed proposals we often seek in our solicitations. Moreover, the contracting activity has had issues with transmittal of proposals and tracking whether or not the proposal was timely submitted.

Accordingly, submissions through SAM.gov will not be accepted.

II. REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSAL CONTENT

(1) Introduction and Purpose: This section specifies the format that offerors shall use in this Request for Proposal (RFP). The intent is not to restrict offerors in the manner in which they will perform their 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:

Cover: The cover should indicate the following:

Title of the proposal Proposal Category (Facility Clearance, Technical Approach, Small Business Participation

Plan, Past Performance, Price and Small Business Subcontracting Plan) Request for Proposal (RFP) Number Name and Address of Offeror, Cage Code, DUNS and applicable Tax I.D. Number (TIN) Identification if original or a copy of the proposal Proposal validity period of 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 contractor’s response to the requirements contained in the RFP. Unnecessary elaboration or other presentations beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are not desired and may be construed as an indication of the offeror’s lack of understanding of cost consciousness. Elaborate art work 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 (1) 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: The following page limitations are established:

Factor and Sub-Factor Titles Page Limit* Required Format Factor I – Facility Clearance No limit Microsoft Word

Factor II – Technical Approach 45 pages Microsoft Word

Factor III – Small Business Participation Plan 20 Pages Microsoft Word

Factor IV – Past Performance 12 Pages Microsoft Word

Factor V – Price No limit Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel

Factor VI – Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Not an Evaluation Factor)

No limit Microsoft Word

All submission and attachments shall be in Microsoft Office Word, unless otherwise noted. Submissions sent in any other format other than Microsoft Word, unless otherwise noted, will not be evaluated and will be considered non-responsive. Submissions are page limited to the maximum number of pages as defined above. These page limitations are inclusive of any charts, diagrams, and/or other graphics. Graphics (including tables) in the proposal must use an alternative Times New Roman font with 8 point size type or larger. Each “page” is defined as one sheet, 8 ½ “ x 11”, with at least one (1) inch margins on all sides, using Times New Roman 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 selected as single-spaced in Microsoft Word with Microsoft Word Normal character spacing. Pages shall be consecutively numbered. The offeror is permitted to submit no more than two (2) pages for each of the following, which will not be included in the page count: a cover sheet, list of tables, list of figures, list of acronyms, compliance matrix, and table of contents.

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.

*Cross-Referencing: The proposal volumes shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross referencing to another volume. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

Each page of each copy shall be affixed with the following legend:

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Volume I:

Factor I – Facility Clearance

The Offeror shall provide proof/verification that it possesses a current Secret Facility clearance at time of proposal submission. The proof/verification shall be in the form of Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) verification or a letter from the Offeror’s Corporate Officer certifying it possesses a current Secret Facility Clearance. The letter submission from its Corporate Officer shall include the following: Cage Code, Facility Name, Physical Location, Facility Clearance (FCL) Status/Level, Status Date/Issue Date, Safeguarding Level, Authorized Access To, FCL Limitation, Facility Security Officer, Facility Security Officer Phone Number, DCSA Field Office, and DCSA Field Office Phone Number.

Factor II – Technical

Offerors shall provide, in detail, a technical approach that demonstrates a complete understanding of and the capability to fully implement and execute all requirements of the solicitation and Performance Work Statement (PWS). The technical approach must include, at a minimum, the following:

o The detailed approach to meeting the specific services and requirements identified in paragraphs C.1 through C.8 of the PWS o The approach to providing the personnel resources and meeting the skill sets identified in paragraph C.9 of the PWS. If the offeror does not identify the labor categories listed in C.9 by the same specific title, then a cross-reference listing shall be provided in the offeror’s proposal identifying the difference(s).

o The approach to providing the facilities and performing the services required in paragraphs C.2 of the

PWS.

o The offeror shall provide a detailed management approach demonstrating how the offeror will successfully accomplish the requirements of the solicitation, including the PWS.

o Description of subcontractor utilization and control procedures o The offeror shall describe any risks associated with the implementation of the offeror’s overall technical and management approach to meeting all requirements of the solicitation and PWS; describe techniques and actions to mitigate such risks; and explain how the techniques and actions identified for risk mitigation have been successfully used by the offeror.

Factor III - Small Business Participation Plan

Offerors (large and small businesses) SHALL provide a Small Business Participation Plan. Small Business Participation Plans shall address the following:

The extent to which small business concerns are specifically identified;

The extent of commitment to use small business concerns (for example, enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

Past performance of the offerors in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

The extent of participation of small business concerns in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

Factor IV – 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 (1) 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 section L (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 Elysia Allen at elysia.allen@navy.mil, elysia.m.allen2.civ@us.navy.mil and Richard Mateljan at richard.a.mateljan@navy.mil , richard.a.mateljan.civ@us.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 V – 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 “SEPS Contract Pricing” spreadsheet provided as an attachment of the RFP. The pricing spreadsheet will indicate pricing information for each ordering period year 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.

Unless completed in System for Award Management (SAM), “Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors” certification completed by the offeror.

Travel costs are anticipated; therefore, the Government has included travel amounts for each period of performance. All Offerors are to propose the travel amounts provided below for all identified travel CLINs, ordering and option periods.

The estimated travel amounts are provided in the solicitation as Not to Exceed (NTE), cost reimbursable CLINs. The Government’s estimated travel (plus applicable burdens) shall be used for the purpose of evaluating the price proposal. Application of overhead and/or G&A rates, as appropriate, will be allowed only if the offeror maintains separate accounts for such costs; the offeror must apply burdens (as appropriate and allowable) to the common evaluation amounts. No profit or fee may be applied to the travel costs. Any offeror having an accounting system that allows for the application of overhead and G&A to travel shall specifically state this. The offeror’s failure to identify that additional indirect cost elements will be included shall result in those costs being deemed as mutually agreed upon as unallowable during the performance of the contract.

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

TRAVEL

Year 1 $500,000.00 Year 2 $525,000.00 Year 3 $550,000.00 Year 3 $575,000.00 Year 4 $600,000.00

FAR 52.217-8 $315,000.00

For the purpose of preparing a price proposal, the contractor shall assume that the basic period of performance will be one (1) five-year ordering period and a six (6) month extension in accordance with FAR 52.217-8.

Volume IV:

Factor VI – Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Other than Small Businesses ONLY; Not an Evaluation Factor)

Large business offerors SHALL submit a Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 19.704, Subcontracting Plan Requirements. Offerors are permitted to submit a master subcontracting plan so long as it is created in accordance with FAR 19.701 and FAR 19.704(b). Subcontracting Plans are not required from small business offerors.

It is the goal of this solicitation that prime contractors subcontract with small businesses to the maximum extent practicable. For other-than-small (large) prime contractors, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan goals shall be expressed in terms of whole dollars and percentages based on total planned subcontracting dollars. Of the total planned subcontracting dollars, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall include goals for Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses, Woman-Owned Small Businesses, HubZone Small Businesses, Veteran Owned Small Businesses and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business. The Government will consider prior achievement of small business subcontracting plan goals as well as the proposed dollar values and percentages related to this solicitation. Small businesses are not required to submit a subcontracting plan, but are required to submit a small business participation plan.

The completion and submission of the above items will constitute an offer (proposal) and will indicate the offeror’s unconditional assent to the terms and conditions of this RFP and any attachments and/or exhibits hereto. Alternate proposals are not authorized. Objections to any of the terms and conditions of the RFP will constitute a deficiency (see FAR 15.001) which will make the offer unacceptable. An offeror may correct a deficiency only through discussions (see FAR 15.306(d) and 15.307).

FAR CLAUSE 52.212-2 ADDENDUM

FAR CLAUSE 52.212-2 ADDENDUM, EVALUATION CRITERIA – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

The Government intends to award multiple FFP, Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represent the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation. Although the Government intends to award up to two

(2) contracts, but not more than four (4) contracts, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award to any number of contracts less than four (4), to include awarding only one (1) contract. Each offeror’s proposal shall be in the form prescribed by, and shall contain a response to, each of the areas identified in the Section L solicitation provision entitled “Instructions to Offerors.” This source selection will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items and FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, FAR Subpart 16.5, Indefinite Delivery Contracts. These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov/content/regulations.

The Government intends to award the contract without discussions. Accordingly, each Offeror should submit its most favorable terms from a price and non-price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

The evaluation of proposals will consider the Offeror’s non-price proposal to be significantly more important than the Offeror’s price proposal. Within the non-price proposal, Factor II - Technical Approach will be considered more important than Factor IV - Past Performance and Factor IV - past performance will be considered more important than Factor III - small business participation plan.

Task orders issued from the awarded IDIQs will be Firm Fixed Price (FFP).

Volume I:

Factor I – Facility Clearance

Facility Clearance will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis using the Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Table 1 below. Factor I will be evaluated on the Offeror’s proposal of proof/verification of a current, DCSA-approved SECRET Facility Clearance; per the requirements of the solicitation.

Table 1 – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Table

Technical Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation

NOTE: Offerors receiving a rating of “Unacceptable” for Factor I will no longer be considered for award and no further evaluation will be conducted.

Volume II:

Factor II – Technical Approach

The offeror will be evaluated on its ability to provide a technical approach that demonstrates a complete understanding of and the capability to fully implement and execute all requirements of the solicitation and PWS.

The offeror’s technical approach will be evaluated on its feasibility, its comprehensiveness, and the degree to which the offeror demonstrates how it will successfully accomplish the requirements identified in the PWS. The offeror will be evaluated on the following:

o The detailed approach to meeting the specific services and requirements identified in paragraphs C.1 through C.8 of the PWS o The approach to providing the personnel resources and meeting the skill sets identified in paragraph C.9 of the PWS. If the offeror does not identify the labor categories listed in C.9 by the same specific title, then a cross-reference listing shall be provided in the offeror’s proposal identifying the difference(s).

o The approach to providing the facilities and performing the services required in paragraphs C.2 of the PWS o The offeror’s detailed management approach demonstrating how the offeror will successfully accomplish the requirements of the solicitation, including the PWS.

o Description of subcontractor utilization and control procedures.

o The offeror’s proposed techniques and actions to mitigate risks associated with the technical and management approach and how these have been successfully used by the offeror.

The purpose of the technical factor is to assess the offeror’s proposed approach to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The risk associated with the offeror’s technical approach will also be assessed. Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed technical approach to 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.

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 rating will be from the Technical Ratings Table.

Technical 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 unawardable.

Risk Descriptions 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.

NOTE: An offer that receives a “Marginal” rating for the technical factor is not eligible for award if award is made on initial offers. Offerors that receive a “Marginal” rating are considered to be 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 the technical factor is not awardable.

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 technical factor or sub-factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Factor III - Small Business Participation Plan

The Contracting Officer will evaluate the Small Business Participation Plan as follows:

The extent to which small business concerns are specifically identified;

The extent of commitment to use small business concerns (for example, enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

Past performance of the offerors in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

The extent of participation of small business concerns in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

The offeror’s small business participation plan factor will be assigned a rating shown in the “Small Business Participation Plan Ratings Table” below.

Small Business Participation Plan Ratings Table Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

NOTE: An offer that receives a “Marginal” rating for the small business participation plan factor is not eligible for award if award is made on initial offers. Offerors that receive a “Marginal” rating are considered to be 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 the small business participation plan factor is not awardable.

Factor IV: Past Performance

The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to meet the task order’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 as 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 proposal 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 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.

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.

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: An offer that receives a “Limited Confidence” rating for the Past Performance factor is not eligible for award if award is made on initial offers. Offerors that receive a “Limited Confidence” rating are considered to be 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 “No Confidence” in the Past Performance factor is not awardable.

Volume III:

Factor V: Price

Price will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. For the purpose of preparing a price proposal, the contractor shall assume that the basic period of performance will be one (1) five-year ordering period and a six (6) month extension in accordance with FAR 52.217-8. The Government will evaluate the price proposal for the ordering period and FAR 52.217-8.

The Offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated on the basis of price reasonableness. The evaluation may include, but is not limited to:

a. Price comparison with other Offerors

b. Comparison with Independent Government Estimate (IGE)

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 proposals for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that a proposal 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

The dollar values provided in Section L - Instructions, Conditions & Notices, under Section I, Volume II: Factor V - Price Proposal, in regards to Travel 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 a proposal e-mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the proposal shall result in a binding task order 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 exchanges after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Volume IV:

Factor VI – Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Other than Small Businesses ONLY; Not an Evaluation Factor)

The contracting officer will negotiate an acceptable small business subcontracting plan if the apparent successful offeror is a large business concern in accordance with FAR 19.702(a)(1). Failure to negotiate an acceptable subcontracting plan will make the offeror ineligible for the award.

PERFORMANCE OF WORK STATEMENT

SECTION C – PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

The Ship’s Engineering and Planning Support (SEPS) Program includes Engineering/Engineering Technical services, Engineering Graphic Services, Configuration Data Management, Environmental Engineering1 Technical- Hazardous Waste Material management for the protection of personnel and the environment, Production Control Services, Material and Logistical Support, Quality Assurance, Computer Related Services and Meeting Conference Facilitation Services. The majority of the contractors work is in support of Aircraft Carriers and will be performed at various Government ships facilities.

NOTE: For this contract, in regard to nuclear powered aircraft carriers, contract personnel shall not be employed to perform design, engineering, or logistic services in posted radiation areas, and handle radioactive materials, or wear radiation measuring dosimeter devices.

C.1.1 The contractor shall provide engineering services for the development of Carrier Availability Planning Systems (CAPS), feasibility studies, material identification and tracking, ship change documents (SCD), production costs and manday estimates, ship system status studies, repair specifications, and verifications, and other products that are required primarily for U.S. Naval aircraft carriers and other U. S. Naval Vessels as specified in individual task orders.

C.2.1 Facility Location. The nature of the work required by the proposed contract will require close liaison. The contractor shall staff and maintain a office/s located within one hour driving distance of:

Bremerton, WA Norfolk, VA

San Diego, CA

Shown below are the locations and estimated percentages of work to be performed:

Location % of Work Facility Requirement Bremerton, WA 20% Facility Required

Norfolk, VA 30% Facility Required San Diego, CA 30% Facility Required

Contractor’s Facilities 10% Other locations as specified on individual Task Orders 10%

C.2.1.1 REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION AND TRAVEL COSTS

C.2.1.2 Reimbursement for Transportation and Travel costs shall be in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 31.205-46 and the Federal Joint Travel Regulations.

C.2.1.3 No fee shall be applied.

C.2.1.4 Travel is to be included in the following not-to-exceed (NTE) ceiling amounts:

Period Not-To-Exceed (NTE) Ceiling Amount Year 1 $500,000.00 Year 2 $525,000.00 Year 3 $550,000.00 Year 4 $575,000.00 Year 5 $600,000.00

FAR 52.217-8 $315,000.00

Travel shall be individually negotiated at task order level.

C.2.2 In connection with the performance of this work, the contractor shall provide such Marine Mechanical, Electrical, Electronic and Hull, and Compartment technical support pertaining to shipboard systems including:

configuration graphics, configuration management, production controller, ship equipment, material, and support services.

The contractor shall be responsible for obtaining, and the required reproduction of, all documents required for the performance of the resultant contract.

C.2.3 Problems may arise during the performance of the work, which may be resolved most expeditiously by discussion; therefore, close liaison between the contractor and the Government Ordering Officer, Contracting Officer Representative (COR), and Technical Advisor (TA) must be maintained. In view of this, face-to-face meetings at COMMANDER, NAVAL AIR FORCES (COMMANDER NAVAL AIR ATLANTIC / PACIFIC), may be scheduled to discuss the contractor's performance. This does not preclude the use of additional liaison, be it other face-to-face meetings, telephone conversations, etc., to discuss pertinent problems. No discussion between contractor personnel and Government personnel shall be construed as direction to change provisions of any task orders or the basic contract.

C.2.4 Only the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) at the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Norfolk (FISC Norfolk) or as directed in Section G, Contract Administration Data, the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) has the authority to direct…