ICS Combined Synopsis Solicitation- Amendment 0001.docx

ICHSANDOHSTTXOCT25123

Section Contract Clauses

COMBINED SYNOPSIS

The Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) Fleet Logistics Center (FLC) Norfolk Contracting Department, Norfolk, VA 23511-3998, intends to award a firm fixed price Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity for the Naval Safety and Environmental Training Center to acquire Incident Command System and Oil and Hazardous Substance Tabletop Exercise Courses using the policies and procedures of FAR 13.5 and FAR 16.505. This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in FAR Subpart 12.6, Streamlined Procedures for Evaluation and Solicitation of Commercial Items, with the additional information included in this notice. This requirement will be solicited as a 100% Small Business Set-Aside. The NAICS code applicable to this procurement is 611430, Professional and Management Development Training, and the size standard is $15 million.

BACKGROUND:

The contractor shall provide services for the Naval Safety and Environmental Training Center (NAVSAFENVTRACEN), Norfolk, VA. These services shall provide Incident Command System and Oil and Hazardous Substance Tabletop Exercise Courses per the Performance Work Statement.

Please read the attached Solicitation for additional information.

The solicitation, any documents related to this procurement, and all amendments issued will be in electronic form. The solicitation is expected to be available on or about 27 March 2025 on Sam.gov. The Sam.gov website has a “submit bid” button next to the solicitation number. DO NOT use the “submit bid” button on Sam.gov. Please submit all Quotes and Questions to Alexandria.e.mccune.civ@us.navy.mil and christopher.d.whiteside2.civ@us.navy.mil.

QUESTIONS: Vendors may submit questions regarding clarification of solicitation requirements via email to Alexandria.e.mccune.civ@us.navy.mil and Christopher Whiteside at christopher.d.whiteside2.civ@us.navy.mil. It is requested that all questions be received by April 02 2025 by 1300 Eastern Time, as time may not permit responses to questions received after that date to be prepared and issued prior to the receipt of quotations.

All responsible sources may submit a quotation which will be considered by the Government. By submitting a quotation, the vendor will be self-certifying that neither the principal corporate officials nor owners are currently suspended, debarred, or otherwise ineligible to receive contracts from any federal agency. Failure to do so may represent grounds for refusing to accept the quotation. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to conduct verbal or written discussions with respect to other than price with the vendors at any time prior to award. By submission of a quotation, the vendor acknowledges the requirement that a prospective awardee must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database prior to award, during performance, and through final payment of any contract resulting from the solicitation, except for awards to foreign vendors for work to be performed outside the United States. Lack of registration in the SAM database will make a vendor ineligible for award. Vendors may obtain information on registration and annual confirmation requirements by calling 1-866-606-8220, or via the Internet at https://www.sam.gov

Attachments:

· CAP

· QASP

· PWS

· Provisions and Clauses

· PRICING SPREADSHEET

· Past Performance Information Form

· Past Performance Report Form

· Contract Deficiency Report (CDR)

CONTRACT ADMIN

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION APPOINTMENTS AND DUTIES

In order to expedite administration of this contract/order, the following delineation of duties is provided including the names, addresses and phone numbers for each individual or oƯice as specified. The individual/position designated as having responsibility should be contacted for any questions, clarifications or information regarding the functions assigned.

1. PROCURING CONTRACTING OFFICER (PCO) is responsible for:

a. All pre-award information, questions, or data;

b. Freedom of Information inquiries;

c. Change/question/information regarding the scope, terms or conditions of the basic contract document; and/or

d. Arranging the post award conference (See FAR 42.503).

Name: Chris Whiteside Address: NAVSUP FLC Norfolk 1968 Gilbert Street Suite 600 Norfolk, VA 23511

2. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION OFFICE (CAO) is responsible for matters specified in FAR 42.302 and DFARS 242.302 except in those areas otherwise designated herein.

Name: Alexandria McCune Address: NAVSUP FLC Norfolk 1968 Gilbert Street, Suite 600 Norfolk, VA 23511-3392

3. DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY (DCAA) is responsible for audit verification/provisional approval of invoices and final audit of the contract prior to final payment to the contractor.

Name: N/A

4. PAYING OFFICE is responsible for payment of proper invoices after acceptance is documented.

Name: TO BE COMPLETED AT TASK ORDER Address: ------------------------------------------- Phone: -------------------------------------------

5. CONTRACTING OFFICERS REPRESENTATIVE (COR) is responsible for:

a. Liaison with personnel at the Government installation and the contractor personnel on site;

b. Technical advice/recommendations/clarification on the statement of work;

c. The statement of work for delivery/task orders placed under this contract.

d. An independent government estimate of the eƯort described in the definitized statement of work;

e. Quality assurance of services performed and acceptance of the services or deliverables;

f. Government furnished property;

g. Security requirements on Government installation;

h. Providing the PCO or his designated Ordering OƯicer with appropriate funds for issuance of the Delivery/Task order; and/or

i. Certification of invoice for payment NOTE: When, in the opinion of the Contractor, the COR requests eƯort outside the existing scope of the contract (or delivery/task order), the Contractor shall promptly notify the Contracting OƯicer (or Ordering OƯicer) in writing.

No action shall be taken by the contractor under such direction until the Contracting OƯicer has issued a modification to the contract or, in the case of a delivery/task order, until the Ordering OƯicer has issued a modification of the delivery/task order; or until the issue has otherwise been resolved. THE COR IS

NOT AN

ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING OFFICER AND DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT

THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF EFFORT WHICH IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE STATEMENT OF WORK

IN THE CONTRACT OR DELIVERY/TASK ORDER.

Name: TBD Address:

Phone:

6. TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, if assigned by the requiring activity, is responsible for providing technical assistance and support to the COR in contract administration by:

a. Identifying contractor deficiencies to the COR;

b. Reviewing contract/delivery/task order deliverables and recommending acceptance/rejection of deliverables;

c. Identifying contractor noncompliance of reporting requirements;

d. Evaluating contractor proposals for specific contracts/orders and identifying areas of concern aƯecting negotiations;

e. Reviewing contractor reports providing recommendations for acceptance/rejection;

f. Reviewing invoices for appropriateness of costs and providing recommendations to facilitate certification of the invoice;

g. Providing COR with timely input regarding the SOW, technical direction to the contractor and recommending corrective actions; and

h. Providing written reports to the COR as required concerning trips, meetings or conversations with the contractor.

Name: N/A

7. ORDERING OFFICER is responsible for:

a. Requesting, obtaining, and evaluating proposals for orders to be issued;

b. Determining the estimated cost of the order is fair and reasonable for the eƯort proposed;

c. Obligating the funds by issuance of the delivery/task order;

d. Authorization for use of overtime;

e. Authorization to begin performance; and/or

f. Monitoring of total cost of delivery/task orders issued.

The following limitations/restrictions are placed on the Ordering OƯicer:

a. Type of order issued is limited by this contract to ------------------- pricing arrangements;

b. No order shall be placed in excess of $5,342,109.52without the prior approval of the PCO; and/or

c. No order shall be placed with delivery requirements in excess of $5,342,109.52.

Name: TBD Address:

Phone:

Email:

DURATION OF CONTRACT PERIOD

(a) This contract shall become effective on 01 OCTOBER 2025 or date of award, whichever is later, and the ordering period shall continue in effect during the period ending 60 months after date of contract unless terminated in accordance with other provisions herein. Performance under task orders issued under this contract may begin 10 days after the effective date of the contract and may continue in effect during the period ending 60 days after the last day of the ordering period.

(b) Notwithstanding the above, the Contracting Officer may extend the contract ordering period to accommodate the issuance of task orders in accordance with paragraph (e) of “Level of Effort”.

MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM QUANTITIES

As referred to in paragraph (b) of the “Indefinite Quantity” clause of this contract, the total contract minimum quantity 1 The contract maximum quantity is a 35.

Period Contract Maximum Quantity per ordering period:

Quantity

ADDENDUM FAR 52.212-1

The Government intends to award a single Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Contract with Firm, Fixed-Price (FFP) provisions as a result of this solicitation in accordance with FAR Part 12, FAR Subpart 13.5, FAR Subpart 16.5, and FAR 19.5. Award will be made to that vendor whose quote represents the best value to the Government under the selection criteria set forth in this solicitation. The Government intends to evaluate quotes and make an award based on initial quotes. Therefore, the vendor's initial quote should contain the vendor's best terms from a Technical, Past Performance, and Price standpoint.

The Government intends to award the task order without exchanges. The establishment of a competitive range is not anticipated. Accordingly, each vendor should submit its most favorable terms from a facility security clearance, technical, past performance and price standpoint. However, the Government may contact any or all vendors with questions concerning their responses as permitted under FAR Part 13. The Government reserves the right to award a FFP contract to other than the lowest priced vendor; award a FFP contract without exchanges; or award a FFP contract after exchanges, whichever is in the best interest of the Government.

Vendors are hereby instructed that, regardless of any language that may be used in this solicitation, the Government is NOT conducting this procurement under FAR Part 15. This procurement is being conducted under FAR Subpart 13.5.

QUESTIONS: Vendors may submit questions regarding clarification of solicitation requirements to Alexandria McCune and Christopher Whiteside via email to Alexandria.e.mccune.civ@us.navy.mil and christopher.d.whiteside2.civ@us.navy.mil. It is requested that all questions be received by 02 April 2025 at 1pm Eastern Time, as time may not permit responses to questions received after that date to be prepared and issued prior to the receipt of quotes.

FOR SUBMISSIONS OF QUOTES:

(1) Quotes shall be submitted no later than the due date of the solicitation via email to Alexandria McCune and Christopher Whiteside via email to Alexandria.e.mccune.civ@us.navy.mil and christopher.d.whiteside2.civ@us.navy.mil. Vendors shall comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the quotes contained herein; quotes that do not comply may be considered unacceptable and may render the quote ineligible for award. All electronic files and versions of vendors’ quotes shall be compatible with the current release of Adobe Acrobat and Microsoft Office Suite version 2016 (Word and Excel). The vendor shall be responsible for ensuring that their electronic quotes are virus free.

(2) Vendors shall comply with all instructions for submitting quotes and attachments.

(3) Volumes I and II – Non-Price Quote These volumes shall address the Technical and Past Performance factors and include all information required for quote evaluation. This volume of the quote shall exclude any cost/price information. Each page of each copy shall be affixed with the following legend:

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104

(4) Volume III – Price Quote This volume shall include the completed solicitation documents and a complete and detailed price breakdown with all supporting information. Each page of each copy shall be affixed with the following legend:

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

REQUIREMENTS FOR QUOTATION CONTENT:

The quote should contain the following items in addition to other information required by this solicitation.

The cover page should indicate the following:

· Title of the quote

· Volume Number (I, II, or III)

· Quote Category (Factor/Subfactor)

· Request for Quotation Number

· Name and Address of Vendor, CAGE Code, DUNS number, and applicable Tax I.D. Number (TIN)

· Identification if original or a copy of the quote

· Point of Contact name, telephone number, and email address

· Quote valid for 180 days after solicitation closing

· The contractor shall advise their interest in West, East, or All locations.

Quotes shall be prepared in three (3) separate and distinct volumes:

· Volume I, Factor I – Technical

· Subfactor I – Quality Control Plan

· Subfactor II – Contingency Plan

· Subfactor III - Sample of Student Guide/Material

· Volume II, Factor II – Past Performance

· Volume III, Factor III – Price

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

1. Requirements for Style: Each vendor shall submit a quote that clearly and concisely describes and defines the contractor’s response to the requirements contained in the solicitation documents and attachments. Unnecessary elaboration or other presentations beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective quote are not desired and may be construed as any indication of the vendor’s lack of understanding of cost consciousness. The quote shall contain all the pertinent information in sufficient detail in the one area of the quote where it contributes most critically to the discussion of the same information. When necessary, the vendor shall refer to the initial discussion and identify its location within the submitted quote.

2. Quote Page Limitations Volumes I and II Non-Price Quote - The following page limitations are established:

All submission and attachments shall be in Adobe Acrobat PDF, Microsoft Office Word, or Microsoft Office Excel. Submissions are page limited to the maximum number of pages as defined above. These page limitations are inclusive of the executive summary and any charts, diagrams, and/or other graphics. Graphics (including tables) in the quote 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 selected as 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 vendor 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 acronyms, list of figures, compliance matrix, table of contents, tabs, and dividers.

Pages submitted in excess of the page limitations described within will not be evaluated.

Volume III, Price Quote – is not page limited.

The Price Quote is not page limited; however, the Price quote is to be strictly limited to price information and completed solicitation documents as described in the General Section at the beginning of this text.

* 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 quote.

1. Volume I, Factor I: Technical

Subfactor I: Quality Control Plan Vendors shall describe in detail the vendor’s plan to ensure only qualified instructors are deployed to teach the Incident Command System and Oil & Hazardous Substance Tabletop Exercise Courses AND to ensure only NAVSAFENVTRACEN-approved information is delivered to students, per section 7 and 9 of the PWS. The description shall clearly describe tools to be used and steps to be taken to ensure the following:

· All instructors are fully qualified according to the PWS

· All materials are approved and current with prevailing standards and policies

· Improvement of instructor performance as required

· Maintenance of instructor skills/proficiencies Subfactor II - Contingency Plan Vendors shall describe the method planned to replace an instructor in event of an emergency, illness, or death (see PWS Section 5.9). Since the Government reserves the right to request that an instructor be replaced due to poor performance (see PWS Section 5.10), this plan must address the following contingencies:

· How to replace resource personnel due to emergent/unforeseen circumstance without interruption or degradation of performance

· How to replace resource personnel due to poor performance or lack of qualifications without interruption or degradation of performance Subfactor III - Sample of Student Guide/Material For technical review and evaluation, vendors shall submit a sample Student Guide/Manual IAW section 5.14 of the PWS. The sample shall include materials specific to the lesson topics, along with any additional materials determined pertinent by the course instructor(s), and clearly demonstrate the following requirements:

· Information is accurate and accompanied by effective graphics and samples, presented in a logical order, with designated space for note-taking.

· All materials reflect the most current Navy and OSHA policies and guidelines.

2. Volume II, Factor II – Past Performance:

To demonstrate its past performance, the vendor shall identify up to three (3) of its most relevant contracts performed within five (5) years of the solicitation issuance date. Those contracts must reflect work that has already performed. Work yet-to-be performed by the solicitation closing date will not be considered. Vendors 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. Vendors shall not submit the IDIQ contract, FSS contract, or BPA itself as a reference. Vendors 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 work that has already been performed prior to the closing date of the solicitation. If a combination of DOs, TOs, TDLs and or TATs are used as a past performance example, the vendor 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.

If a quoted 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 vendor’s submittal shall also detail clearly the aspects of the work in the solicitation that the subcontractor is quoted to perform. A Past Performance example which does not detail clearly the aspects of the work in the solicitation that the subcontractor is quoted to perform may not be evaluated.

If the prime vendor 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 vendors 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 FAR provision 52.212-1 Addendum (within five years and must reflect work that has already been performed prior to the solicitation closing date). 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 will 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 references will be evaluated in the aggregate in order to allow vendors who may not have the entire scope and magnitude of the requirement under one individual contract to still be evaluated for quality if past performance with the full scope and magnitude of the requirement can be demonstrated within the allotted number of references as described above.

The vendor 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, vendors 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 Alexandria McCune and Christopher Whiteside via email to alexandria.e.mccune.civ@us.navy.mil and christopher.d.whiteside2.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.

3. Volume III, Factor III – Price The Price Quote shall include the completed solicitation documents. The price quote shall include all elements of price and such other price information considered appropriate to support the quote. This submittal shall include the following:

· Attachment III –Pricing Spreadsheet completed by the vendor (see below for additional instructions).

· Vendors shall complete Attachment III, to include the vendor’s quoted unit price for the classes, for the specified performance periods. NOTE: THE QUOTED UNIT PRICES SHALL BE THE PRICE PER COURSE AND VENDORS SHOULD NOT PUT IN THE TOTAL MAX CEILING AS A UNIT PRICE. THIS PRICING INFORMATION SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY TRAVEL COST.

· The Firm-Fixed Price rates submitted in this Attachment will be incorporated into the resultant contract as a table for orders placed against the max ceiling amount.

· Vendors shall identify the applicable Wage Determination (WD) for their primary location and ensure submitted pricing is in compliance with the SCLS. Link for WDs is here: https://sam.gov/search/?page=1&pageSize=25&sort=modifiedDate&index=wd&sfm%5Bstatus%5D%5Bis_active%5D=true. Final applicable WD will be incorporated into the resultant task order based on contractor location.

· Unless completed in SAM, RFQ Section, "Representation, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors" completed by the vendor in accordance with FAR 52.204-8, FAR 52.204-24, FAR 52.204-26 and DFARS 252.204-7007 Alt. A.

· All price and price supporting information shall be contained in the price submittal. No price or pricing information shall be included in any other volume including cover letters. Vendors are responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate their price quote.

· A completed price table as detailed in the combined synopsis/solicitation that provides pricing for all CLINs completed by the vendor. For the purpose of preparing a price quote, the vendor shall assume that the period of performance consists of a 5-year ordering period, and FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, established in the Schedule. Vendors shall use the predetermined ceilings detailed in the combined synopsis/solicitation for CLINS 0001 and 1001 and the travel information provided below for CLINS 0002 and 1002.

· 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 quote. Application of overhead and/or G&A rates, as appropriate, will be allowed only if the vendor maintains separate accounts for such costs; the vendor must apply burdens (as appropriate and allowable) to the common evaluation amounts. No profit or fee may be applied to the travel costs. Any vendor having an accounting system that allows for the application of overhead and G&A to travel shall specifically state this. The vendor’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. Vendors shall use the following Government-estimated travel amounts in preparing their price quote: VENDORS SHALL USE THE FOLLOWING GOVERNMENT-ESTIMATED TRAVEL AMOUNTS IN PREPARING THEIR PRICE QUOTE:

ADDENDUM FAR 52.212-2, EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES

The Government intends to award a single Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Contract with Firm, Fixed-Price (FFP) provisions as a result of this solicitation in accordance with FAR Part 12, FAR Subpart 13.5, FAR Subpart 16.5, and FAR 19.5. Award will be made to that vendor whose quote represents the best value to the Government under the selection criteria set forth in this solicitation. The Government intends to evaluate quotes and award based on initial quotes. Therefore, the vendor's initial quote should contain the vendor's best terms from a Technical, Past Performance, and Price standpoint.

Vendors simply providing general statements or paraphrasing/parroting the PWS in whole or in any part may result in a rating of unacceptable. Vendors should be aware that a complete understanding as to technical, price, and all terms and conditions of the quoted contract must exist between the vendor and the Government at the conclusion of exchanges, if held. Material changes to quotes submitted in any final quote revisions, if made, may not be subject to further exchange, and may render the quote unacceptable to the Government. All vendors and team member/subcontractor information must be incorporated into one coherent quote to be considered complete.

The evaluation of quotes will consider the Non-Price Quote to be significantly more important than the Price Quote. Within the Non-Price Quote, Technical Approach is more important than Past Performance. The Technical Approach will be composed of Subfactor I- Quality Control Plan, Subfactor II - Contingency Plan, and Subfactor III - Sample of Student Guide/Material, all of which are of equal importance.

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 quotes in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based. The importance of price will also increase when an vendor’s price is so significantly high as to diminish the value to the Government that might be gained under the other aspects of the vendor. If, at any stage of the evaluation, all vendors are determined to have submitted equal, or virtually equal, quotes, price could become the factor in determining which vendor shall receive the award.

All quotes will be reviewed for timeliness. Timely quotes will also be reviewed for compliance to the solicitation. If the quote is not compliant with the material terms of the solicitation, it may not be evaluated and the vendor will be notified that the quote is non-responsive.

1. Volume I, Factor I: Technical The purpose of the technical factor is to assess the offeror’s proposed approach to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the threshold performance or capability 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. 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.

The technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, strengths, deficiencies, uncertainties, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses in determining technical ratings.

NOTE: An offer that receives a “Marginal” rating for the technical factor or any sub-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 a discussion is appropriate and said discussion is conducted; and as such, an offeror that receives a rating of “Marginal” in the technical factor or any sub-factor is not awardable and will not be further evaluated unless discussions are conducted. An offeror that receives a rating of “Unacceptable” in the technical factor or any sub-factor is not awardable and will not be further evaluated.

Sub-factor I: Quality Control Plan The offeror will be evaluated on the feasibility, comprehensiveness, and the degree to which the offeror demonstrates an understanding of, and capability to successfully accomplish, the requirements of the solicitation, specifically, the requirement of a detailed QCP clearly stating his/her procedures for ensuring quality (see PWS Sections 7.0 and 9.0). As part of the above plan, the contractor shall establish and maintain an instructor evaluation system. Records of all instructor evaluations for contract employees shall be kept current, complete, and available to the Contracting Officer, or COR upon request during the performance of this contract.

Sub-factor II - Contingency Plan The offeror’s method planned to replace an instructor in event of an emergency, illness, or death (see PWS Section 5.9), as well as for poor performance (see PWS sections 5.10), will be evaluated on the feasibility, comprehensiveness, and the degree to which the offeror demonstrates an understanding of, and capability to successfully accomplish, the requirements of the solicitation, including the following:

· How to replace resource personnel due to emergent/unforeseen circumstance without interruption or degradation of performance

· How to replace resource personnel due to poor performance or lack of qualifications without interruption or degradation of performance

Sub-factor III - Sample of Student Guide/Material The offeror’s proposed sample of Student Guide/Manual will be evaluated on the feasibility, comprehensiveness, and the degree to which the offeror demonstrates an understanding of, and capability to successfully accomplish, the requirements of the solicitation, including the following: addressing Section 5.1.4 of the PWS; addressing Course Materials, along with any additional materials determined pertinent by the course instructor(s), and clearly demonstrate the following requirements:

· Providing a textbook like student guide at the beginning of the course for the student to use and keep (i.e., a student guide is a resource that provides academic and administrative learner support throughout the course. It generally includes information about the topics and areas being covered in a course, self-study activities, examples and exercises that promote independent learning and assist the learner in further understanding of course materials.).

· Course syllabus.

· Copies of any computer-generated graphics to be shown along with purposed note-taking space. The order of the material in the student guide shall follow the order in which the material is presented in class to reduce any confusion among the students by having them skip around through the student guide searching for the proper pages.

2. Volume II, Factor II – Past Performance:

The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in a vendor’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 vendor.

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. Evaluation will focus only on work experience already performed. Work yet-to-be performed, and work prior to the last five years, will not be considered. In addition, performance data will only be assessed for those references demonstrating work that has already performed prior to the closing date of the solicitation within the past 5 years.

Past Performance Relevancy: Regarding relevancy, each past performance reference under each vendor’s Past Performance submission will be evaluated to determine its scope, and magnitude relative to the instant requirement as detailed in table 3 below.

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 vendor’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.

The aggregate of each vendor’s past performance references in terms of scope and magnitude will result in the assessed overall relevance of that vendor’s past performance.

Past Performance Quality: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the vendor’s past performance. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the vendor’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 4 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 vendor’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 by the solicitation closing date will not be considered.

If the vendor’s aggregated past performance is determined to be not relevant as defined in the solicitation, then the quality of the vendor’s past performance will not be evaluated through a confidence assessment and the past performance factor will be rated as “Neutral Confidence.” If a vendor’s aggregate past performance is determined to be relevant, then each past performance reference under the vendor’s past performance submission that contributed to the determination of aggregate relevance (i.e., each reference that is rated at least somewhat relevant) will be evaluated to determine the quality of the vendor’s performance under that reference. The quality of performance on contract references that are rated Not Relevant is not evaluated even when the overall past performance is found to be relevant.

In the case of vendors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the vendor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the past performance factor. In this case, the vendor’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral Confidence.” Although a vendor 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 vendor’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.

This evaluation and rating is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the vendor’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the relative capability of the vendor and other competitors to successfully meet the requirements of the RFQ. In determining the rating for the past performance evaluation subfactor, the Government will give greater consideration to the contracts which the Government assess as most relevant to the RFQ.

NOTE: A rating of “Limited Confidence” for the past performance factor means that the vendor’s quote is not awardable without a change or changes to the vendor’s quote. A quote that includes a “Limited Confidence” rating is considered to be susceptible to correction if the contracting officer determines that exchanges is appropriate and said exchange is conducted. A rating of “No Confidence” for the past performance factor means that the vendor’s quote is not awardable, is not susceptible to correction, and will not be further evaluated.

3. Volume III, Factor III – Price Price quotes will be evaluated based on price reasonableness in accordance with FAR 13.106-3, Price Analysis. The Government may evaluate any and all information submitted by the vendor to support the reasonableness of the prices quoted. The method of evaluation used by the contracting officer is solely within the discretion of the contracting officer. The vendors are required to complete the Price Spreadsheet Attachment, and any information such as commercial pricing listings or any information, which can be used in evaluating the submitted price quote.

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 quotes in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based. The importance of price will also increase when a quoted price is so significantly high as to diminish the value to the Government that might be gained under the other aspects of the quote. If, at any stage of the evaluation, all vendors are determined to have submitted equal, or virtually equal, non-price quotes, price could become the factor in determining which vendor will receive the award.

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

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

4. Written Notice A written notice of award or acceptance of a quote e-mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful vendor within the time for acceptance specified in the quote, shall result in a binding task order without further action by either party. Before the quote’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept a quote (or part of a quote), whether or not there are exchanges after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

5. Rating Tables

TABLE 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH - COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING TABLE

TABLE 2: TECHNICAL RISK DEFINITIONS TABLE

DEFINITIONS:

Strength – an aspect of a vendor's quote with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength – an aspect of a vendor’s quote with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness – a flaw in the quote 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 quote to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a quote 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 a vendor’s quoted approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Uncertainty – aspect of a non-cost/price factor quote for which the intent of the quote is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the quote or inconsistencies in the quote indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake)

TABLE 3: PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING METHOD

TABLE 4: PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS RATING METHOD

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE