The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with FAR Part 13 Simplified Acquisition Procedures and 12.6 Streamlined Procedures for Evaluation and Solicitation for Commercial Items.
This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; a Request for Quotation (RFQ) is being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. The Solicitation number is N00244-26-Q-S001. The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through latest Federal Acquisition Circular and DFARS change notices. This solicitation is issued as full and open competition. NAICS Code 711310 Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment (except Automotive and Electronic) Repair and Maintenance is applicable and business size is $12.5 (millions of dollars). The solicitation will start on the date this solicitation is posted and will end on 19 September 2025 12:00 PM Pacific Standard Time.
Contractor must complete all Representations and Certifications found in the provisions listed below within their profile in the System for Award Management (SAM) at http://www.sam.gov to be considered for this solicitation.
Requirements This requirement is to provide dining facility furniture, lighting fixtures, decorative signage, and modification of interior of facility to include window, doors, walls identified at Naval Base Coronado in Naval Amphibious (NAB) & Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) galleys. The contractor will provide both custom design services as well as fabrication of custom mixed-media mural(s) with integrated lighting and floating walls.
Refer to Performance Work Statement for full detail.
Base Period of Performance: 01 October 2025 – 30 September 2026
Delivery: FOB Destination.
Inspection and acceptance: At Destination by the Government.
Contract Type: Purchase Order/Contract resulting from this solicitation will be Firm Fixed Price (FFP).
This solicitation documents and incorporates provisions and clauses in effect through the latest FAC and DFARS change notices. It is the responsibility of the contractor to be familiar with the applicable clauses and provisions. The clauses may be accessed in full text at these addresses: https://www.acquisition.gov
Post Award Contract Administration will be performed by NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center San Diego, Code 240.
Payment: The US Navy anticipates using Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) to pay invoices IAW DFAR 252.232-7003.
Requests for technical and or contractual clarification are to be submitted in writing. TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL to christine.jordan@navy.mil and received no later than 7 days from solicitation close. Answers to questions will be provided in the form of an amendment to this solicitation.
THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS AND CLAUSES ARE APPLICABLE AND ARE HEREBY INCORPORATED INTO THE SOLICITATION BY REFERENCE AND BY FULL TEXT.
It is the responsibility of the interested contractors to obtain copies of the necessary provisions and or clauses that are required as a part of this solicitation. Required clauses/provisions that are not submitted may render a quote not to be accepted by the Government.
THE FOLLOWING NAVSUP LOCAL TEXT IS HEREBY MADE PART OF THE STATEMENT OF WORK/PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT.
NAVSUP FLC San Diego may utilize contractor support through the AbilityOne Program, as needed, to perform contract closeout functions for this acquisition. Information, including business sensitive/confidential or proprietary data, that the offeror provides to the Government or information already in the possession of the Government may be viewed and utilized by the AbilityOne Program support contractor personnel during the course of its contract performance. The information that may be made available to the support contractor may include, for example, pricing and technical proposals, historical contract, pricing and performance information, Commercial Asset Visibility (CAV) reporting information and similar data/information.
By submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation, the offeror and its subcontractors consent to a release of their business sensitive/confidential or proprietary data to the Government's AbilityOne Program support contractor personnel in order to perform close out services. Prior to the release of any such information to the support contractor, the support contractor will have in place with the Government a Non-Disclosure/Non-Use Agreement in accordance with the terms of the AbilityOne Program support contract.
Offerors may execute their own Non-Disclosure Agreement with the AbilityOne Program (AbilityOne contact information available from the contracting point of contact). The support contractor must provide copies of the executed agreements to the Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) for the support contract; and the offeror/contractor for this acquisition must provide copies of the executed Agreement to the Contracting Officer for this acquisition. If the offeror/contractor seeks such a Non-Disclosure Agreement with the AbilityOne Program support contractor, the Agreement must be executed no later than the date of final delivery under the resulting NAVSUP FLC San Diego contract.
REVIEW OF AGENCY PROTESTS
The contracting activity, Fleet Logistics Center San Diego (FLCSD) will process agency protests in accordance with the requirements set forth in FAR 33.103(d).
Pursuant to FAR 33.103(d)(4), agency protests may be filed directly with the appropriate reviewing authority; or, a protester may appeal a decision rendered by a contracting officer to the reviewing authority.
The reviewing authority for FLCSD is the Director, Regional Contracts Department, Fleet Logistics Center San Diego at 3985 Cummings Road, San Diego, CA 92136-4200. Agency procurement protests should clearly identify the initial adjudicating official, i.e., the "contracting officer" or "reviewing official".
Offerors should note this review of the Contracting Officer's decision will not extend GAO's timeliness requirements. Therefore, any subsequent protest to GAO must be filed within 10 days of knowledge of initial adverse agency action.
UNIT PRICES
Contractor unit prices, when incorporated into a Government contract, may be releasable under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in the event NAVSUP FLCSD receives a FOIA request.
For supplies: New Equipment ONLY; NO remanufactured or "gray market" items. All items must be covered by the manufacturer's warranty.
No partial shipments are permitted unless specifically authorized at the time of award.
WAGE DETERMINATION
If applicable, WD 2015-5625 (Rev.24) and posted on https://sam.gov/is hereby incorporated by reference. To view the Ventura County, CA Wage Determination-please visit https://sam.gov/
It is the responsibility of the interested contractors to obtain copies of the necessary provisions and or clauses that are required as a part of this solicitation. Required clauses/provisions that are not submitted may render a quote not to be accepted by the Government.
PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
| 52.204-7 |
| System for Award Management |
| OCT 2018 |
| 52.204-16 |
| Commercial and Government Entity Code Reporting |
| AUG 2020 |
| 52.204-24 |
| Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment |
| NOV 2021 |
| 52.209-11 |
| Representation by Corporations Regarding Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction under any Federal Law |
| FEB 2016 |
| 52.212-1 |
| Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Items (CD 2018-O0018) |
| NOV 2021 |
| 52.212-2 |
| Evaluation—Commercial Items |
| NOV 2021 |
| 52.212-3 |
| Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Products and Commercial Services--Alternate I |
| NOV 2021 |
| 52.252-5 |
| Authorized Deviations in Provisions |
| APR 1984 |
| 252.203-7005 |
| Representation Relating to Compensation of Former DoD Officials |
| NOV 2011 |
| 252.204-7008 |
| Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense Information Controls |
| OCT 2016 |
| 252.204-7016 |
| Covered Defense Telecommunications Equipment or Services--Representation |
| DEC 2019 |
| 252.204-7017 |
| Prohibition on the Acquisition of Covered Defense Telecommunications Equipment or Services--Representation |
| DEC 2019 |
| 252.204-7019 |
| Notice of NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements. |
| MAR 2022 |
| 252.225-7973 |
| Prohibition on the Procurement of Foreign-Made Unmanned Aircraft Systems—Representation. (DEVIATION 2020-O0015) |
| MAY 2020 |
CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
| 52.203-12 |
| Limitation on Payments to Influence Certain Federal Transactions |
| JUN 2020 |
| 52.203-19* |
| Prohibition on Requiring Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements or Statements |
| JAN 2017 |
| 52.204-9 |
| Personal Identity Verification of Contractor Personnel |
| JAN 2011 |
| 52.204-10* |
| Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards |
| JUN 2020 |
| 52.204-13 |
| System for Award Management Maintenance |
| OCT 2018 |
| 52.204-18 |
| Commercial and Government Entity Code Maintenance |
| AUG 2020 |
| 52.204‐19 |
| Incorporation By Reference Of Representations And Certifications |
| DEC 2014 |
| 52.204-23* |
| Prohibition on Contracting for Hardware, Software, and Services Developed or Provided by Kaspersky Lab and Other Covered Entities |
| NOV 2021 |
| 52.204-25* |
| Prohibition of Contracting for Certain Telecomunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment |
| NOV 2021 |
| 52.209-6* |
| Protecting the Government’s Interest When Subcontracting with Contractors Debarred, Suspended, or Proposed for Debarment |
| NOV 2021 |
| 52.209-10* |
| Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations |
| NOV 2015 |
| 52.212-4 |
| Contract Terms and Conditions—Commercial Items |
| OCT 2018 |
| 52.212-5 |
| Contract Terms and Conditions Required To Implement Statutes or Executive Orders—Commercial Items (CD 2018-O0021) |
| 52.219-6* |
| Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside (DEVIATION 2020-O0008) |
| NOV 2020 |
| 52.219-14* |
| Limitations on Subcontracting. |
| MAR 2020 |
| 52.222-3* |
| Convict Labor |
| JUNE 2003 |
| 52.222-21* |
| Prohibition of Segregated Facilities |
| APR 2015 |
| 52.222-26* |
| Equal Opportunity |
| SEP 2016 |
| 52.222-35* |
| Equal Opportunity for Veterans |
| JUN 2020 |
| 52.222-36* |
| Equal Opportunity for Workers with Disabilities |
| JUN 2020 |
| 52.222-37* |
| Employment Reports on Veterans |
| JUN 2020 |
| 52.222-41* |
| Service Contract Labor Standards |
| AUG 2018 |
| 52.222-42* |
| Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires |
| MAY 2014 |
| 52.222-50* |
| Combating Trafficking in Persons |
| NOV 2021 |
| 52.223-18* |
| Encouraging Contractor Policies to Ban Text Messaging While Driving |
| JUN 2020 |
| 52.224-3* |
| Privacy Training |
| JAN 2017 |
| 52.232-33* |
| Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer—System for Award Management |
| OCT 2018 |
| 52.232-18 |
| Availability of Funds |
| APR 1984 |
| 52.232-40 |
| Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors |
| DEC 2013 |
| 52.232-33* |
| Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer—System for Award Management |
| OCT 2018 |
| 52.232-36* |
| Payment by Third Party |
| MAY 2014 |
| 52.233-4* |
| Applicable Law for Breach of Contract Claim |
| OCT 2004 |
| 52.246-4 |
| Inspection of Services-Fixed-Price |
| AUG 1996 |
| 52.247-34 |
| F.o.b. Destination |
| NOV 1991 |
| 52.252-2 |
| Clauses Incorporated By Reference |
| FEB 1998 |
| 52.252-6 |
| Authorized Deviations in Clauses |
| NOV 2020 |
| 252.203-7000 |
| Requirements Relating to Compensation of Former DoD Officials |
| SEP 2011 |
| 252.203‐7002 |
| Requirement to Inform Employees of Whistleblower Rights |
| SEP 2013 |
| 252.204-7004 |
| DoD Antiterrorism Awareness Training for Contractors |
| FEB 2019 |
| 252.204-7009 |
| Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Third-Party Contractor Reported Cyber Incident Information |
| OCT 2016 |
| 252.204-7012 |
| Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting |
| DEC 2019 |
| 252.204-7015 |
| Notice of Authorized Disclosure of Information for Litigation Support |
| MAY 2016 |
| 252.204-7018 |
| Prohibition on the Acquisition of Covered Defense Telecommunications Equipment or Services |
| JAN 2021 |
| 252.204-7020 |
| NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements. |
| NOV 2020 |
| 252.204-7021 |
| Contractor Compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirement. |
| NOV 2020 |
| 252.204-7022 |
| Expediting Contract Closeout |
| MAY 2021 |
| 252.225-7048 |
| Export-Controlled Items |
| JUNE 2013 |
| 252.232-7010 |
| Levies on Contract Payments |
| DEC 2006 |
| 252.232-7017 |
| Accelerating Payments to Small Business Subcontractors--Prohibition on Fees and Consideration |
| APR 2020 |
| 252.243-7001 |
| Pricing of Contract Modifications |
| DEC 1991 |
| 252.247-7023 |
| Transportation of Supplies by Sea--Basic |
| FEB 2019 |
*Included in 52.212-5
CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT
INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1
SECTION L
| 1. | GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS |
| 1.1 | This section provides general instructions for preparing offers as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the offer. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Taking exception to any provision in the solicitation without addressing the exception with the Contracting office before the offer due date specified within the solicitation will render the offer ineligible for award. |
| 1.2 | The anticipated Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract award under this solicitation will be a total small business set-aside made in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services, and FAR 13.5 Simplified Acquisition Procedures for Certain Commercial Products and Commercial Services following the policies and procedures for solicitation, evaluation, and award. |
| 1.3 | This requirement is being competed under full and open competition |
| 1.4 | The evaluation of offers will be best on a best value basis in accordance with FAR 13.106-1 using a comparative evaluation of offers in accordance with FAR 13.106-2. |
| 1.5 | The Government intends to award this contract without further exchanges with offerors. Notwithstanding this intent, the Government reserves the right to conduct exchanges with Offerors and request revised offers. |
| 1.6 | Vendors are hereby instructed that, regardless of any language that may be used in this solicitation, this procurement is being conducted under FAR 13.5 Simplified Acquisition Procedures. Offerors are advised that in accordance with FAR 13.106-2, the Government, at its discretion, may avail itself to one or more of the evaluations procedures in FAR Part 14 or 15. |
| 1.7 | An Offeror’s offer is presumed to represent the Offeror’s best efforts to comply with the solicitation requirements. Clarity and completeness of the offer are of the utmost importance. The offer must be written in a practical, clear, and concise manner. It must use quantitative terms whenever possible and must avoid qualitative adjectives to the maximum extent possible. Offerors are cautioned against restating PWS requirements in their offer, particularly with regard to technical requirements and must state how all RFQ and PWS requirements will be met. Statements such as "the Offeror understands" and "the Offeror shall/can comply", along with responses that paraphrase the RFQ, are inadequate. The use of phrases such as "standard practices" (with a specific government reference or industry reference) does not indicate that an Offeror understands the requirements and will likely result in a diminished evaluation rating. |
| 1.8 | The offer shall be complete as submitted and not include references to data or information previously submitted. Data previously submitted to the Navy, if any, will not be incorporated “by reference” into the offer and will not be considered in the evaluation of the offer. |
| 1.9 | At the Government’s discretion, the Contractor’s offer may be incorporated into the final contract, either in whole or in part. |
| 1.10 | The Offeror’s offer shall remain valid for at least 120 calendar days after the offer due date. |
| 1.11 | Questions regarding any aspect of this procurement must be submitted in writing via email only and addressed to christine.jordan@navy.mil. The subject line of all email correspondence should state: RFQ N00244-26-Q-S001 QUESTIONS in the subject line. |
| 1.12 | Other methods of submitting questions are not authorized and may not be acknowledged or addressed. Both questions and answers will be posted to the Government Point of Entry for all parties to view. The Government will make every attempt to answer all questions in a timely manner. However, questions submitted within seven (7) business days of the posted closing date may not allow for ample time to respond, and Offerors cannot be guaranteed a response will be issued. All questions must be submitted by date referenced on solicitation. |
| 2. | OFFER FORMAT AND CONTENT |
| 2.1 | The Offerors offer shall be submitted in severable volumes based on the Factors as set forth below and all information specific to each Factor shall be confined to that volume. Failure to provide any volume may result in the offer not being eligible for award. Information provided shall be specific to each Factor. |
| 2.2 | The offeror’s offer shall consist of four (4) separate volumes: |
Volume I – Offer, FAR 52.212-3, and Offeror Representations and Certifications specified herein.
Volume II – Technical Volume III – Past Performance Volume IV – Price
| Volume I – Offer and FAR 52.212-3 |
| Unlimited |
| Volume II –Technical |
| (10) pages |
| Volume III – Past Performance |
| (3) pages, excluding Offeror’s Past Performance Data (OPPD) |
| Volume IV – Price |
| Excel – Unlimited, submission may include a 5-page explanatory in word document. |
* Volume II shall not contain any price or cost information ** Page limits do not include cover pages or table of contents. However, these pages shall not include any material information that needs to be evaluated under the evaluation factors.
Note: To ensure fairness to all offerors, the above page limitations must be strictly enforced by the Government’s evaluation process. Material over and above the page limitation will not be reviewed and/or evaluated by the Government.
| 2.3 | Each volume must include the Cover Sheet. The cover sheet shall include: |
| • | Title – CNRSW Galley Maintenance - Ventura |
| • | Volume Name (Technical/Past Performance/Price) |
| • | Volume Number |
| • | Name and address of the offeror, point-of-contact (POC), title, telephone number, email address, Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), and Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code. |
| • | Table of Contents – The table of contents shall provide enough detail to easily locate all important elements of the offer. |
| 2.4 | The Government prefers one-inch margins on all sides and single-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font with normal spacing, and pages of each volume numbered consecutively. Digital copies shall be provided in Microsoft Word, PDF, and Excel. |
| 2.5 | Electronic copies shall be provided via e-mail no later than the stated due date and time and shall contain all of the specified volumes to be considered for award. Documents shall be submitted in Adobe PDF, Microsoft Word, or Microsoft Excel format. |
| 3. | SPECIFIC VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS |
3.1 VOLUME I: OFFER
3.1.1 Complete and submit the following documents, constituting Volume I:
(a) Standard Form 1449, “Solicitation, Offer and Award” with blocks 17a, 30a, 30b, and 30c completed with original signatures and completed CLIN pricing
(b) Acknowledgement of any/all RFP amendments, by signature and title on each applicable Standard Form 30
(c) All Representations and Certifications or certification of completion within the offerors System of Award Management (SAM) profile
3.2 VOLUME II: TECHNICAL
NOTE: There shall be no cost or pricing information included in Volume II.
3.2.1 The technical offer shall be written so that the government can make a thorough evaluation and arrive at a sound determination as to whether the offer has the capability to successfully perform the requirements contained in the PWS. To this end, the technical offer shall be specific, detailed, and complete, to clearly and fully demonstrate that the prospective contractor has a thorough understanding of and ability to perform the technical requirements contained in the PWS.
3.2.2 The technical volume shall be organized in the order specified and shall address in detail the information required below. Each factor shall be clearly identified.
Factor (1) Technical Approach
3.2.3 TECHNICAL APPROACH: The Offeror must address their understanding of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Offeror must address how they can support the needs and objectives defined in the PWS. Offeror shall demonstrate how it will meet all PM and CM requirements.
The narrative shall provide a complete analysis of the performance work statement requirements and explain processes, best practices, and other methods the offeror will use to meet the requirements of the PWS. Failure to adequately address any of the required information may be considered a “material omission”, precluding further consideration for award. The technical approach is not to be a restatement of the information contained in the PWS.
The offeror shall demonstrate knowledge of and experience with:
- Section 5 from the PWS Offerors shall provide evidence that employees possess and maintain current California Refrigeration License, Rational Training Certificate (Combination Ovens) and Kitchen Equipment Maintenance and Repair Certification during the execution of this contract.
3.3 VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE
| 3.3.1 | The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. |
| 3.3.2 | Offerors should provide relevant past performance information for similar or related work under contracts completed during the last three years from the date of proposal submission for up to three (3) past performance references of which, at least two (2) should be for the prime contractor. Offerors may submit performance data regarding current contract performance as long as a minimum of one year of performance has been completed as of the closing date of this solicitation. Each Offeror has the opportunity to provide in its offer any information regarding its past performance of contracts similar to the Government's requirement that it would like the Government to consider. The Offeror may include Federal, State and Local Government and private sector contracts. |
| 3.3.3 | Offerors should provide the following information below. There is a limit of three past performance entries. |
a. Contract Number and, in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, also include Delivery Order Numbers
b. Customer/Agency (name, e-mail address, and telephone number)
c. Contracting Officer and Technical Point of Contact (name, e-mail address, and telephone number)
d. Brief description of the scope of work: Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation.
e. Contract type (specific type such as Fixed Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Materials (T&M), etc.)
f. Award Price
g. Total Labor-Hours of Effort
h. Period of Performance
i. Contract Deliverables
| 3.3.4 | For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. |
| 3.3.5 | To obtain information, the Government may contact the points of contact listed by Offerors, however, the Government is not required to contact the points of contact provided by Offerors and may limit the number of references it decides to contact. The Government is also free to contact references other than those provided by the Offeror to evaluate past performance of Offerors. |
| 3.3.6 | If the offeror possesses no relevant past performance, it must affirmatively state this fact in the Volume III submittal. |
| 3.4 | VOLUME IV – PRICE |
| 3.4.1 | The price offer shall cover all aspects of the proposed effort including pricing in excel format with a breakdown of the different elements unlocked with unhidden formulas. Data contained in the price offer shall be consistent with data contained in Volume II. |
| 3.4.2 | The Offeror is required to submit a price offer breakdown for each CLIN included in the Schedule of Supplies/Services of the Solicitation. All CLINs must be rounded to the nearest whole dollar. |
3.4.4 The Government reserves the right to ask offerors for additional pricing information if needed to determine reasonableness.
3.4.5 Offerors should use the hours provided in the Price Template attachment; however, if an offeror proposes less hours than those listed, then it must provide a narrative detailing why and how they can accomplish the requirements of the PWS with less personnel. The explanation must clearly demonstrate the offeror’s ability to meet all goals and objectives set forth in the PWS. Failure to provide an adequate explanation may render the proposal ineligible for award.
EVALUATION FACTORS ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 SECTION M
| 1.0 | EVALUATION CRITERIA |
| 1.1 | This procurement will be conducted in accordance with FAR 13.5 using a best value evaluation using a comparative evaluation of offers. The award resulting from this solicitation will be a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) commercial contract solicited through the open market via www.sam.gov. |
| 1.2 | Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation requirements, is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The acquisition will utilize a comparative evaluation in accordance with FAR 13.106-2 to make a best value award decision. |
| 1.3 | An initial competitive pool of contractors to be evaluated will be established by evaluating the three (3) lowest priced offers. The government may, at its sole discretion, expand the competitive pool by any number of additional offerors at any stage of the procurement process as many times as it sees fit. If the competitive pool is to be expanded by less than the total number of responsible offerors, inclusion will be based on lowest price. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. |
| 1.4 | Award will be made to the responsible offeror, in accordance with FAR Part 9.1, whose offer conforms to the solicitation requirements and is determined to be the Best Value Offeror after performing a comparative evaluation, where price and other factors are considered. |
| 1.5 | To make a determination of Best Value, the Government shall first perform a side-by-side comparative analysis (comparing contractor responses to one another) of the submission of each Offeror in the competitive pool. Then, the Government will compare the submission of each Offeror in the competitive pool considering price and perform Tradeoffs (if any), to determine the overall Best offeror. The non-price factors are approximately equal in importance to each other and when combined, are equal in importance to Price. The Government reserves the right to consider an offer other than the lowest price that provides additional benefit(s). |
| 1.6 | The Government intends to award this contract based on initial offers. Therefore, the Offeror's initial offer should contain the Offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to have exchanges and request revised offers. The Government may limit the number of offerors it engages with exchanges for purposes of efficiency at its discretion. |
| 2.0 | EVALUATION FACTORS |
| 2.1 | The Government will evaluate offers based on the following factors: |
Factor I – Technical Factor II – Past Performance Factor III - Price
| 2.2 | Factor I (Technical) and Factor II (Past Performance Confidence) are of equal importance. The non-cost factors [Factor I (Technical), Factor II (Past Performance Confidence), when combined, are equal to Factor III (Price). |
| 3.0 | FACTOR I – TECHNICAL |
| 3.1 | The Government will evaluate each offeror against each of the other offerors in the competitive pool with respect to their compliance with the solicitation requirements. Specifically, the Government will evaluate the: |
| 3.1.1 | Technical Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s offer to determine the Offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and ability to successfully accomplish the requirements identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Government will evaluate the extent in which the Offeror’s technical approach demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to accomplish the specified work in a technically competent, and timely manner with minimal risk to the Government. The narrative will be evaluated for analysis of the performance requirements and explanation of the processes, best practices, and other methods the Offeror proposes to use to meet each requirement stated in the PWS. |
| 3.2 | The Government will not use any form of scoring schema nor use any adjectival grading in its evaluation. It will base its overall determination of suitability on the quality and completeness of responses compared to the other offerors, resulting in an offeror considered technically Best Suited, an offeror considered second Best Suited, and so on for all Offerors in the competitive pool. In the instance of technical parity between offerors in the competitive pool, more than one offeror may be considered Best Suited, second Best Suited, and so on. |
| 4.0 | FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE |
| 4.1 | The assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be used by the Government as a means to evaluate the relative capability of the Offeror and other competitors to successfully meet the requirements of the PWS and as a measure of performance risk for contract award. The government’s assessment of performance risk is not intended to be the product of a mechanical or mathematical analysis of an offeror’s performance on list of contracts, but rather the product of subjective judgment of the government after it considers all available relevant and recent information. |
| 4.2 | Each past performance reference will be evaluated to determine whether the work performed by the Offeror is recent and relevant to the instant requirement. Relevant past performance is performance under contracts accomplished within the past three (3) years from the date of proposal submission that is of the same or similar scope, complexity, and magnitude to that which is described in the solicitation. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/ support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting. |
| 4.3 | The Government will assign one relevancy rating for each past performance effort submitted using the four levels of relevancy as shown in “Past Performance Relevancy Rating” Table below. Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Past performance reference that that has no relevance to the instant requirement will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably and will not be considered in the overall assessment of Past Performance Confidence. |
| 4.4 | Table M-1 “PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING” |
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Very Relevant |
| Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
| Relevant |
| Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
| Somewhat Relevant |
| Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
Not Relevant
Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
| 4.5 | Each past performance reference under each offeror’s Past Performance submission that is found to have at least some relevance to the instant requirement will be evaluated to determine the quality of the offeror’s performance under that reference. The Government will focus its inquiry of the Offerors record of performance as it relates to timeliness, quality, cost control, and customer satisfaction. |
| 4.6 | Quality of the relevant past performance will form the basis for the Offeror’s overall rating for Past Performance. |
| 4.7 | In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the government will evaluate the offeror neither favorably nor unfavorably on past performance. Such offerors will receive a rating of “Neutral Confidence.” A "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating is worth more than a "Neutral Confidence" past performance rating. |
Past performance will be rated using the ratings defined below:
TABLE M-2 “PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE”
| Overall Rating |
| Definition |
| Substantial Confidence |
| Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| Satisfactory Confidence |
| Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| Neutral Confidence |
| No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. |
The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.
| Limited Confidence |
| Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| No Confidence |
| Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. |
| 5.0 | FACTOR III – PRICE |
| 5.1 | Offerors are reminded that a finding of “No Confidence” in Factor II will result in the entire offer being determined unacceptable and therefore will not be further evaluated under Factor III – Price. |
| 5.2 | All offers will be ranked by the total evaluated price. Total Evaluated Price will be calculated by summing the evaluated price for the base year and all option years, plus the Option to Extend, per FAR clause 52.217-8. Evaluation of options WILL NOT obligate the Government to exercise the options. |
| 5.3 | Price will be evaluated to determine that the proposed price is fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 13.106-3. Price reasonableness will be determined using one or more techniques identified in FAR 13.106-3(a) such as comparison of competitive offers. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items or subline item(s) appear to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. |
| 5.4 | Price will be evaluated by totaling the prices for all line items, including option periods, for which the Government has requested the offeror provide a price. Option prices will be evaluated at time of award. Evaluation of the options WILL NOT obligate the Government to exercise the options. |
| 6.0 | DEFINITIONS |
| Table |
| Definitions |
| Recency |
| As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is expressed as a period of time during which past performance references are relevant. |
| Relevancy |
| As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. |
| 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 subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. |
RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION
A Responsibility Determination will be conducted in accordance with FAR 9.104 utilizing any information available to the Government (FAPIIS, CPARS PPIRS, SAM, etc.). If an offeror is determined non-responsible, award will not be made to that contractor.
