Solicitation 003.pdf

N0018925R0032

SEE ADDENDUM

(No Collect Calls)

N0018925R0032 03-Jun-2025

b. TELEPHONE NUMBER

757-406-2892

8. OFFER DUE DATE/LOCAL TIME

02:00 PM 07 Jul 2025

5. SOLICITATION NUMBER 6. SOLICITATION ISSUE DATE

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012)

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

(TYPE OR PRINT)

(SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER)

ADDENDA X ARE

26. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT (For Gov t. Use Only )

23.

CODE 10. THIS ACQUISITION IS

SUCH ADDRESS IN OFFER

17b. CHECK IF REMITTANCE IS DIFFERENT AND PUT

BELOW IS CHECKED

TELEPHONE NO.

N001899. ISSUED BY

18b. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN BLOCK 18a. UNLESS BLOCK

7. FOR SOLICITATION

INFORMATION CALL:

a. NAME

JAMES P. KEEGAN

2. CONTRACT NO. 3. AWARD/EFFECTIVE DATE 4. ORDER NUMBER

(TYPE OR PRINT)

30b. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 30c. DATE SIGNED 31b. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

30a. SIGNATURE OF OFFEROR/CONTRACTOR 31a.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

27a. SOLICITATION INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-1. 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-3. 52.212-5 ARE ATTACHED.X

25. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

1. REQUISITION NUMBER

20.

ADDITIONAL SHEETS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED.

OFFEROR TO COMPLETE BLOCKS 12, 17, 23, 24, AND 30

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

ARE NOT ATTACHED

27b. CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-5 IS ATTACHED. ADDENDA ARE ARE NOT ATTACHED

(BLOCK 5), INCLUDING ANY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES WHICH ARE

SET FORTH HEREIN, IS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS:

. YOUR OFFER ON SOLICITATION

28. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN

% FOR:SET ASIDE:UNRESTRICTED ORX

SMALL BUSINESS

17a.CONTRACTOR/ CODE FACILITY

OFFEROR CODE

NAVSUP FLC NORFOLK CONTRACTING

NORFOLK OFFICE

ATTN: J KEEGAN

1968 GILBERT ST. STE 600

NORFOLK VA 23511-3392

18a. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

RATED ORDER UNDER

DPAS (15 CFR 700)

13a. THIS CONTRACT IS A

13b. RATING

CODE15. DELIVER TO CODE N70272 16. ADMINISTERED BY

12. DISCOUNT TERMS11. DELIVERY FOR FOB DESTINA-

TION UNLESS BLOCK IS

MARKED

SEE SCHEDULE

14. METHOD OF SOLICITATION

RFQ IFB RFPX

NAVAL COMPUTER AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS AR

LACHANA HILL

MASTERS STATION ATLANTIC

NCTAMSLANT BLDG MB-100

1518 PIERSY STREET

NORFOLK VA 23511-3384

TEL: 757-400-9615 FAX:

FAX:

TEL: 757-406-2892

SERVICE-DISABLED

VETERAN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS

8(A)

HUBZONE SMALL

BUSINESS

SIZE STANDARD:

1,500

NAICS:

517111

OFFER DATED

29. AWARD OF CONTRACT: REF.

DELIVER ALL ITEMS SET FORTH OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND ON ANY

COPIES TO ISSUING OFFICE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO FURNISH AND

EMAIL:

TEL:

31c. DATE SIGNED

SEE SCHEDULE

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICESITEM NO. QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

24.22.21.19.

WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS (WOSB)

ELIGIBLE UNDER THE WOMEN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM

EDWOSB

32g. E-MAIL OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(CONTINUED)

PAGE 2 OF86

ACCEPTED, AND CONFORMS TO THE CONTRACT, EXCEPT AS NOTED: ______________________________________________________

32a. QUANTITY IN COLUMN 21 HAS BEEN

RECEIVED INSPECTED

32b. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32c. DATE 32d. PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32e. MAILING ADDRESS OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE 32f . TELEPHONE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

37. CHECK NUMBER

FINALPARTIALCOMPLETE

36. PAYMENT35. AMOUNT VERIFIED

CORRECT FOR

34. VOUCHER NUMBER

FINAL

33. SHIP NUMBER

PARTIAL

38. S/R ACCOUNT NUMBER 39. S/R VOUCHER NUMBER 40. PAID BY

41a. I CERTIFY THIS ACCOUNT IS CORRECT AND PROPER FOR PAYMENT

41b. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER 41c. DATE

42a. RECEIVED BY (Print)

42b. RECEIVED AT (Location)

42c. DATE REC'D (YY/MM/DD) 42d. TOTAL CONTAINERS

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012) BACK

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

SEE SCHEDULE

20.

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICES

21.

QUANTITY UNIT

22. 23.

UNIT PRICE

24.

AMOUNT

19.

ITEM NO.

Section SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

DURATION OF CONTRACT PERIOD

DURATION OF CONTRACT PERIOD

(a) This contract shall become effective on 01 August 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”.

ADDENDUM FAR 52.212-1

ADDENDUM FAR 52.212-1, INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS:

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 Part 15, and FAR

Subpart 16.5. Award will be made to that offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government under the selection criteria set forth in this solicitation. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make an award based on initial proposals. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a

Technical, Past Performance, Small Business Participation Plan and Price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to award a FFP contract to other than the lowest priced offeror; award a FFP contract without discussions; or award a FFP contract after discussions, whichever is in the best interest of the Government.

The Government intends to award a single FFP contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation. The offeror's proposal shall be in the form prescribed by, and shall contain a response to each of the areas identified in ADDENDUM FAR 52.212-1, INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS.

QUESTIONS: Offerors may submit questions regarding clarification of solicitation requirements to Jim Keegan and Christopher Whiteside via email at james.p.keegan7.civ.@us.navy.mil and

Christopher.d.whiteside2.civ@us.navy.mil. It is requested that all questions be received by 10 June 2025 by 1300

Eastern Time, as time may not permit responses to questions received after that date to be prepared and issued prior to receipt of proposals.

SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

(1) Proposals shall be submitted electronically no later than the due date of the solicitation to Jim Keegan and

Christopher Whiteside via email at james.p.keegan7.civ.@us.navy.mil and

Christopher.d.whiteside2.civ@us.navy.mil. Offerors shall comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposals contained herein; proposals that do not comply may be considered unacceptable and may render the proposal ineligible for award. All electronic files and versions of offerors proposals shall be compatible with the current release of Adobe Acrobat and Microsoft Office Suite version 2016. The offeror shall be responsible for ensuring that their electronic proposals are virus free.

(2) Volumes I & II – Non-Price Proposal

These volumes shall address Technical Approach and Past Performance and include all information required for proposal evaluation. This volume of the proposal shall exclude any pricing information. Proposals shall include the following legend on each page:

Source Selection Information

See FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104 mailto:james.p.keegan7.civ.@us.navy.mil mailto:Christopher.d.whiteside2.civ@us.navy.mil mailto:james.p.keegan7.civ.@us.navy.mil mailto:Christopher.d.whiteside2.civ@us.navy.mil

(3) Volume III – Price Proposal

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:

(4) Volume IV – Small Business Participation Plan (all Offerors) and Small Business Subcontracting Plan (other than small business offerors only)

This volume shall address the Small Business Participation Approach and include all information required for proposal evaluation. Each page of each copy shall be affixed with the following legend:

REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSAL CONTENT

The offer should contain the following items in addition to other information required by this solicitation. The cover page should indicate the following:

Title of the proposal

Volume Number (I, II, III, or IV)

Proposal Category (Factor/Sub-factor)

Request for Proposal Number

Name and Address of Offeror, CAGE Code, EUI number, and applicable Tax I.D. Number (TIN)

Point of Contact name, telephone number, and email address

Proposal valid for 180 days

Proposals shall be prepared in four (4) separate and distinct volumes:

Volume I - Factor I: Technical Approach

Volume II - Factor II: Past Performance

Volume III - Factor III: Price

Volume IV – Small Business Participation Plan (all offerors) and Small Business Subcontracting Plan

(other than small business offerors only)

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 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. The proposal shall contain all the pertinent information in sufficient detail in the one area of the proposal where it contributes most critically to the discussion of the same information. When necessary, the offeror shall refer to the initial discussion and identify its location within the submitted proposal.

2. Proposal Page Limitations

Volumes I, II, IV Non-Price Proposal - The following page limitations are established:

Title Proposal Quantities Page Limit*

Factor I, Technical 1 Electronic Submission 12 Pages

Factor II: Past Performance 1 Electronic Submission 12 Pages

Factor IV: Small Business Participation Plan (and, if applicable, Small Business Subcontracting Plan)

1 Electronic Submission No limit

All submission and attachments shall be in Microsoft Office Suite. 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 proposal may use an alternative font with 8-point size type or larger. Each “page” is defined as one sheet, 8 ½ “x 11”, with at least one inch margins on all sides, using a font with a font size of 12 or greater (e.g., "Times New Roman" style with 12-point font), and shall be in portrait orientation. 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 offeror is permitted to submit no more than one page for each of the following, which will not be included in the page count: a cover sheet, list of tables, list of figures, compliance matrix, table of contents, tabs, and dividers.

Volume III - Price Proposal - is not page limited.

Title Proposal Quantities Limit* Software

Factor III, Price 1 Electronic Submission No limit Microsoft Excel

The Price Proposal is not page limited; however, the Price Proposal 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 proposal.

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

1. Volume I–Technical Approach

Factor I – Technical Approach

Offeror shall provide a technical approach that details how the offeror intends to meet the specific services and requirements identified in the PWS. Offerors shall demonstrate a thorough understanding of, as well as its ability to implement and execute the tasks/requirement, specified within Sections 6 and 7 of the PWS.

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

2. Volume II – Past Performance Proposal

Factor II – Past Performance

To demonstrate its past performance, the offeror shall identify up to three (3) of its most relevant contracts performed within five (5) years of the solicitation issuance date. Those contracts must reflect at least one year of completed performance within the five years prior to the closing date of this 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 year of completed performance prior to the closing date of this 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.

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

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

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

Failure of offerors to provide the required information and level of specificity may result in the contract reference not being evaluated.

With respect to joint ventures, the procuring activity will consider work done individually by each member of the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. Joint venture references must meet the temporal requirements described in ADDENDUM FAR 52.212-1, INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND

NOTICES TO OFFERORS (within five years and must reflect at least one year of completed performance prior to the closing date of this solicitation). 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 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 James Keegan and Christopher Whiteside via email to james.p,keegan7.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.

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

3. Volume III – Price Proposal

Factor III – Price

The Price Proposal shall include the completed solicitation documents. The price proposal shall include all elements of price, and other price information considered appropriate to support the proposal. The pricing information shall be completed in accordance with the following:

Completed Section B "Schedule of Supplies/Services" completed by the offeror.

Completed Attachment IV, Pricing Spreadsheet. An offeror must propose on all line items for all ordering periods in this spreadsheet. Failure to do so shall be cause for rejection of the offer. All pricing shall be calculated to the second decimal. The firm-fixed prices proposed in the pricing spreadsheet will be incorporated into the resultant contract as maximum rates to be used for task order proposals. Pricing shall match section B of this solicitation.

Vendors shall use the predetermined celings detaled in the solicitation for CLINS 0001, 1001, 200, 3001, 4001, 5001, and 6001

A completed and signed page 1 of the solicitation and a completed and signed page 1 of any amendments;

mailto:james.p,keegan7.civ@us.navy.mil mailto:christopher.d.whiteside2.civ@us.navy.mil

Unless completed in SAM, RFP Section, "Representation, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors" completed by the offeror in accordance with FAR 52.204-24, and FAR 52.204-26.

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. Offerors are responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate their price proposal.

4. Volume IV- Small Business Participation Plan (all offers)

Factor IV- Small Business Participation Plan

All offerors, both large and small businesses, are required to provide a Small Business Participation Plan responding to the elements below:

o The extent to which small business concerns are specifically identified;

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

o The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

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

When subcontracting possibilities existed on the contracts submitted by the offeror in the Past

Performance volume, address whether or not the offeror awarded subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

If utilizing small businesses in current or prior contracts was not practicable, the offeror shall explain why.

Provide any information substantiating the offeror’s track record of utilizing small business on past contracts in detail. Include, at a minimum, two most recent Summary Subcontract Reports

(SSR) from eSRS.

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

Volume IV - Small Business Subcontracting Plan (for other than small businesses only)

Each offeror that is not a small business shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that contains all elements required by FAR clause 52.219-9 Alt II (Deviation), and as supplemented by DFARS clause 252.219-

7003, by the closing date and time of this solicitation. The small business subcontracting plan is not an evaluation factor and will not be evaluated as part of the formal source selection process. Offerors are permitted to submit a master subcontracting plan as long as it is created in accordance with FAR 19.701 and FAR

19.704(b). Small Business Subcontracting Plans are not required from offerors that qualify as small business concerns under NAICS code 517111 with a size standard of 1,500 employees.

It is the goal of this solicitation that prime contractors subcontract with small businesses to the maximum extent practicable. For other-than-small 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 businesses. 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.

ADDENDUM FAR 52.212-2 EVAL

ADDENDUM FAR 52.212-2, EVALUATION CRITERIA:

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 Part 15, FAR

Subpart 16.5. Award will be made to that offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government under the selection criteria set forth in this solicitation. The evaluation will consist of Factor I: Technical Approach, Factor

II: Past Performance, Factor III: Price, and Factor IV: Small Business Participation Plan. The evaluation of proposals will consider the Non-Price Proposal to be significantly more important than the Price Proposal. Within the Non-Price Proposal, Factor I – Technical is more important than Factor II – Past Performance, each of which are more important than Factor IV – Small Business Participation Plan.

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

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 an offeror’s price is so significantly high as to diminish the value to the Government that might be gained under the other aspects of the offeror. If, at any stage of the evaluation, all offerors are determined to have submitted equal, or virtually equal, proposals, price could become the factor in determining which offeror shall receive the award.

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

1. Non-Price Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Factor I: Technical Approach

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. 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 Tables below. The overall assigned technical factor and subfactor ratings will be from Table 1.

Offeror’s technical approach will be evaluated on how it intends to meet the specific services and requirements identified in the PWS. Offerors shall be evaluated on its feasibility, comprehensiveness, and the degree to which the offeror demonstrates an understanding of, and capability to successfully accomplish the tasks/requirements specified within Sections 6 and 7 of the PWS, as well as the additional requirements listed above in the ADDENDUM FAR

52.212-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS-COMMERCIAL ITEMS.

Note: A rating of “Marginal” for any Technical factor means that the offeror’ s proposal is not awardable without a change or changes to the offeror’s proposal. A proposal which includes a “Marginal” rating 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 is appropriate and said exchange is conducted, and as such, an offeror that receives a rating of “Marginal” in the technical factor is not awardable and will not be further evaluated unless discussions are conducted. Offerors receiving a rating of “Unacceptable” for any Technical factor will not be considered for an award and will not be further evaluated.

Factor II: Past Performance:

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

Past Performance Recency: Recency is the first aspect of the past performance evaluation and is the time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. Recency is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. For purposes of this solicitation, recent past performance is performance that has taken place within five (5) years of the issuance date of this solicitation. 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 at least one year of completed performance prior to the closing date of the solicitation within the past 5 years.

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

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

The aggregate of each offeror’s past performance references in terms of scope and magnitude will result in the assessed overall relevance of that offeror’s past performance, and will result in a relevancy rating as outlined in

Table 3 (Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Table), below.

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 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 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 by the solicitation closing date will not be considered.

If the offeror’s aggregated past performance is determined to be not relevant as defined in the solicitation, then the quality of the offeror’s past performance will not be evaluated through a confidence assessment and the past performance factor will be rated as “Neutral Confidence.” If an offeror’s aggregate past performance is determined to be relevant, then each past performance reference under the offeror’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 offeror’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 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 RFP. In determining the rating for the past performance evaluation sub-factor, the Government will give greater consideration to the contracts which the Government assess as most relevant to the RFP.

The references will be evaluated in the aggregate in order to allow the offerors 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.

NOTE: A rating of “Limited Confidence” for past performance factor means that the offeror’s proposal is not awardable without a change or changes to the offeror’s proposal. A proposal which includes a “Limited Confidence” rating 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 is appropriate and said exchange is conducted. Offerors receiving a rating of “No Confidence” for the past performance factor will not be considered for an award and will not be further evaluated. Offerors rated as “Neutral Confidence”, while not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government as “Satisfactory Confidence, or higher, past performance rating may be determined to offer better value.

Factor IV: Small Business Participation Plan (all offerors)

The contracting officer will evaluate each offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan as follows:

o The extent to which small business concerns are specifically identified o The extent of commitment to use small business concerns (for example, enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones) o The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform o Past performance of the offeror in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan o 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 Subcontracting Plan (for other-than-small businesses only). This is NOT an evaluation factor.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirement is mandatory for award to an other than small business. Each other than small business offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be reviewed in accordance with FAR clause 52.219-9 Alt II (Deviation), Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The plan will be reviewed for acceptability. The apparently successful offeror shall negotiate an acceptable subcontracting plan with the contracting officer prior to award. Failure to negotiate an acceptable subcontracting plan will make the offeror ineligible for award. Negotiation of the small business subcontracting plan is not considered discussions and will only occur with the apparent successful offeror. The plan will be incorporated into any resultant contract.

2. Price Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Factor IV: Price

Price Proposals will be evaluated based on price reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), Price

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

Option FAR 52.217-8, will be evaluated pursuant to solicitation provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options.

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for the option to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

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 proposal. 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.

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.

Written Notice

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

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

Rating Tables

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

Rating Description

Outstanding

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

TABLE 2: TECHNICAL APPROACH - RISK RATING TABLE

Low

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

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

High

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

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

DEFINITIONS:

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

Significant Strength – an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal 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 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.

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

TABLE 3: PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY TABLE

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.

TABLE 4: PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT TABLE

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 be 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.

TABLE 5: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN RATINGS TABLE

Adjectival Rating Description

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

The use of a best value with trade-offs source selection process, where technical merit is considered significantly more important than price, is considered appropriate to this requirement because of the importance of these services yielding a high quality outcome and the impact that poor performance can have on the customer’s mission. The Government will be willing to potentially pay a price premium should the non-price factors of

Technical Approach and Past Performance be more highly rated to ensure a higher likelihood of successful performance. Based on the foregoing, the use of the best value with trade-offs source selection process, as detailed above, is appropriate and in the best interest of the Government.

ADDENDUM 52.232-18

ADDENDUM 52.232-18

Pursuant to FAR 52.232-18, funds are not presently available for this contract. The Government’s obligation under this contract is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds from which payment for contract purposes can be made. No legal liability on the part of the Government for any payment may arise until funds are made available to the Contracting Officer for this contract. The notice of availability of funds can be found at the following: https://www.navsup.navy.mil/public/navsup/flcn/contracting/.

CAP IDIQ

CAP IDIQ

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION PLAN (CAP) FOR FIXED PRICE, INDEFINITE DELIVERY, CONTRACTS

In order to expedite the administration of this contract, the following delineation of duties is provided. The names, addresses and phone numbers for these offices or individuals are included elsewhere in the contract award document.

The office or individual designated as having responsibility should be contacted for any questions, clarifications or information regarding the administration function assigned.

1. The Procuring Contract Office (PCO) is responsible for:

a. All pre-award duties such as solicitation, negotiation and award of contracts.

b. Any information or questions during the pre-award stage of the procurement.

c. Freedom of Information inquiries.

d. Changes in contract terms and/or conditions.

e. Post award conference.

2. The Contract Administration Office (CAO) is responsible for matters specified in FAR 42.302, except those areas otherwise designated as the responsibility of the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) or someone else herein.

3. The paying office is responsible for making payment of proper invoices after acceptance is documented.

http://www.navsup.navy.mil/public/navsup/flcn/contracting/

4. The Ordering Officer is responsible for:

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

b. Select the most advantageous offer to the Government for individual Task Orders in accordance with contract provisions. Determining that the price/estimated cost of the order is fair and reasonable for the effort proposed.

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

d. Authorizing the contractor to begin performance.

e. Providing subcontract approval.

f. Monitoring direct costs on orders issued.

NOTE: The PCO and the Ordering Officer may be the same individual, but in no case shall the COR perform the duties of the Ordering Officer.

5. The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) is responsible for interface with the contractor and performance of duties such as those set forth below. It is emphasized that only the PCO/CAO has the authority to modify the terms if the contract. In no event will any understanding, agreement, modification, change order, or other matter deviating from the terms of the basic contract between the contractor and any other person be effective or binding on the government. If in the opinion of the contractor an effort outside the scope of the contract is requested, the contractor shall promptly notify the PCO in writing. No action may be taken by the contractor unless the PCO or CAO has issued a contractual change. The COR duties are as follows:

a. Technical Interface

(1) The COR is responsible for all Government technical interface concerning the contractor and furnishing technical instructions to the contractor. These instructions may include: technical advice/recommendations/clarifications of specific details relating to technical aspects of contract requirements;

milestones to be met within the general terms of the contract or specific subtasks of the contract; or, any other interface of a technical nature necessary for the contractor to perform the work specified in the contract or order.