2.04 N00244-25-R-0032-0001.pdf

R5532125RCEG016

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to 1) add Attachment 6 Govt. Responses to Questions, 2) revise sections L & M to provide clarification in regards to Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, and 3) remove the mention of MDS in 6.1 of the PWS.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 24

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 09-Apr-2025

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X N0024425R0032

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Apr-2025

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

10-Apr-2025

CODE

NAVSUP FLC SAN DIEGO

REGIONAL CONTRACTS (CODE 200)

3985 CUMMINGS ROAD

BUILDING 116 - 3RD FLOOR

SAN DIEGO CA 92136-4200

N00244 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N0024425R0032

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1

Addendum to 52.212-1

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (SEP

2023) - (Section L)

1.0 General Instructions:

This solicitation is issued as a Small Business (SB) Set-Aside under FAR Part 15 Contracting by Negotiation Procedures. Only offers received from eligible Small Businesses under NAICS code 611519 in accordance with FAR 52.219-6 will be considered for award.

The Government contemplates award of a single-award Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract with Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Task Orders for combat technical rescue rigging and ordnance extrication training services in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) provided herein. The period of performance will consist of a one-year base period followed by four (4) one-year option periods for a total potential period of performance of 5-years.

The anticipated contract award under this solicitation will be made in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services, following the policies and procedures for solicitation, evaluation, and award.

The Source Selection process for this IDIQ acquisition will be based on a Tradeoff source selection process with the award being made to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government in accordance with FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation.

Proposals shall be submitted directly to Ms. Christine Jordan, Contract Specialist, via e-mail by the closing date and time specified on the cover page of this solicitation. Offerors must comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposal and should be clear and unambiguous. Failing to comply with the instructions may render the proposal ineligible for award.

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: RFP N00244-25-R-0032 QUESTIONS in the subject line.

The Government will make every attempt to answer all questions in a timely manner; however, questions submitted within 10 days of the closing date may not allow for ample time to respond and Offerors cannot be guaranteed a response will be issued. Offerors should anticipate that questions and responses will be shared for viewing by all other potential Offerors.

Any exception to the Government’s technical requirements/specifications and/or terms and conditions of this RFP, must be resolved prior to the solicitation closing date. Offerors that take exception to the Government’s technical requirements, terms and conditions, omit any required information, or propose additional terms or conditions, without prior resolution with the Contracting Officer, may be deemed unacceptable and eliminated from consideration. Alternate proposals are not authorized and will be rejected.

The Government intends to award a contract on the basis of initial offers received, without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror's best terms and pricing. Notwithstanding this intent, the Government reserves the right, at its discretion, to establish a competitive range that may be limited for purposes of efficiency per FAR 15.306, conduct discussions, and to request and require revised proposals from any or all offerors in accordance with FAR 15.307. The Government also reserves the right to change any of the terms and conditions in the RFP by an amendment at any time prior to contract award and to allow offerors to revise their proposals accordingly.

The Government reserves the right to reject all proposals received in response to a solicitation, if doing so is in the best interest of the Government.

Each Offeror’s proposal is presumed to represent the Offeror’s best efforts to comply with the solicitation requirements and provide the best price. The Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price standpoint. Clarity and completeness of the proposal are of the utmost importance. The proposal 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.

The proposal 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 proposal.

The proposal must demonstrate the Offeror’s familiarity with the detailed aspects of the requirements, and clearly show that the Offeror understands all of the requirements. Offerors are cautioned against restating the PWS in their proposal, particularly with regards to the Factor I: Technical; and must state how all solicitation and PWS requirements will be met. Statements such as "the Offeror understands", and "the Offeror shall/can comply", along with responses that paraphrase the solicitation, are inadequate. The use of phrases such as "standard practices" (with a specific Government reference or industry reference) does not reflect the Offeror’s understanding of requirements and may result in an “Unacceptable” evaluation rating.

2.0 Proposal Format and Content:

All offers must be submitted via e-mail to Contract Specialist Ms. Christine Jordan, e-mail address christine.jordan@navy.mil and must show the RFP Number, Offeror’s name, and the word “PROPOSAL” in the Subject Line of the email.

Proposals will include the following:

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 V – Training Demonstration*

*If requested

Volume Name Page Limit Volume I – Offer and FAR 52.212-3 Unlimited Volume II –Technical 20 pages, excluding resumes and letters of intent Volume III – Past Performance 5 pages, excluding Offeror’s Past Performance

Data (OPPD) Volume IV – Price Excel – Unlimited, submission may include a 5 page explanatory word document Volume V – Demonstration 60 minutes

* 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.

(a) Each written volume must include the following information:

i. Cover Page – The Cover Page shall include:

(A) Title – N00244-25-R-0032 EODGRUONE ROE COI

(B) Volume Name (e.g. Technical, Past Performance, Price etc.)

(C) Volume Number

(D) Name and address of the Offeror, point-of-contact (POC), title, telephone number, fax number, email address

(E) Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), Unique Entity Identifier (UEI), Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code.

(F) List of persons, with their titles and contact information, who are authorized to legally sign a contract and bind the Offeror.

(G) Proposal validity for 120 days from the date of the solicitation closing.

ii Table of Contents – The TOCs shall provide enough detail to locate all required elements of the proposal.

(b) Data submitted to the Government in support of the Offeror’s proposal shall follow the above format.

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.

The Government prefers one-inch margins on all sides, single-spaced typed (one side only) using Microsoft Word minimum 12-point Font text (minimum 8-point font permitted in necessary graphs and charts) on 8.5 x 11-inch paper. Graphs/tables/charts may be included as necessary. Hyperlinks may not be used.

All pages in each volume should be numbered sequentially (i.e., 1-20). The Government will only evaluate that part of the proposal that complies with the instructions set forth herein. For example, if the requirement is a maximum of 20 pages and an offeror submits 22 pages, the last two pages will not be read and/or evaluated.

3.0 Specific Volume Instructions:

3.1 Volume I – Offer

Volume I of the proposal is the offer. The offer must include a complete copy of the SF1449 Solicitation. This volume shall be completely filled in and signed by the offeror. Contractors are required to provide an offer based on the most up to date information provided by the Government.

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 signatures and completed CLIN pricing

(b) Completed Representations and Certifications of solicitation provisions or certification of completion within the offerors System of Award Management (SAM) profile.

(c) Acknowledgement of any/all RFP amendments, by signature and title on each applicable SF 30

3.1.2 Volume I shall be formatted as follows:

a) Cover page

b) Table of Contents

c) Signed Amendments

d) Original 1449 (two pages) and completed CLIN pricing.

e) All Representations and Certifications or certification of completion within the offerors System of Award Management (SAM) profile

3.2 Volume II –Technical – THERE SHALL BE NO COST OR PRICING INFORMATION INCLUDED IN ANY

PART OF VOLUME II.

The purpose of this section is to enable the Navy to assess the Offeror's technical understanding of and capability to perform, manage, and control tasks in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

The Technical Proposal shall consist of no more than 20 pages, excluding letters of intent, employment agreements, title page, and table of contents. Offerors are cautioned that no more than the first 20 pages of their Technical Proposals will be evaluated. If any offer is not in compliance with the page limitation on Technical Proposals the extra pages will be removed and not evaluated.

The technical proposal shall be page numbered, contain a table of contents, be organized in the order specified for technical sub-factors, and shall address in detail the information required below. Each factor and sub-factor shall be clearly identified.

Technical has four sub-factors:

Sub-factor (1) Technical Approach, Sub-factor (2) Staffing, Sub-factor (3) Management Plan, and Sub-factor (4) Facilities

3.2.1 Factor I, Technical --Proposals must demonstrate the offeror’s ability to meet the requirements as set forth in the solicitation and PWS. The offeror shall complete the attached Cross Reference Matrix (see attachment #3).

The following sub-factors narratives shall be provided in the proposal:

(1) Technical Approach: Proposals shall provide a narrative demonstrating the Offeror’s ability to successfully execute training and provide the material requirements and deliverables as set forth in the PWS. The offeror shall explain how they can meet these requirements in such a manner that maximizes training time and minimizes downtime, enabling personnel to meet their training objectives. The narrative shall detail how the offeror intends to provide the required training, as well as describe the offeror’s methods and techniques to provide the required courses of instruction.

The narrative shall detail all COI’s with a day for day execution plan, where the training will be conducted and the safety plans for those sites.

The offeror must address how quickly they can support training requirements once a task-order is issued to meet EOD’s need for training on relatively short notice.

In addition to the narrative the Offeror shall provide a video no longer than 20 minutes in length demonstrating Heavy Lift Capability (movement of a 2000lb object 25ft vertically at one time by 2 personnel utilizing the same person-packable/person-portable equipment that is currently issued to the EOD teams).

(2) Staffing: The Offeror shall describe its plan to provide proper staffing for the tasks described in the PWS.

The plan must be sufficiently detailed to determine that all training services will be provided in accordance with the PWS. Offerors shall address their ability to source, recruit, train, and retain employees who can perform the tasks in the PWS and provide information that will document the current strategies to maintain competent employees, including a narrative describing offered fringe benefits.

The offeror shall submit at least one resume but not more than three resumes, not exceeding two pages in length per resume, for the lead instructors meeting the minimum requirements under section 6.0 of the PWS. The resumes shall emphasize skills, education, and recent (within the past 3 years) experience specific to the PWS. Subcontractor employees must be clearly identified, and the offeror must provide a “Letter of Intent” for each resumed individual that is not a current (at the time it submits its offer) employee. Without the Letter of Intent, the Government considers the resume incomplete and will not consider it in the evaluation.

Each resume shall provide the following information:

--Name --Present place of employment (if contingent hire, so note) --Proposed instructor category --Experience and educational background --Unique skills, specific experience, and accomplishments that are directly applicable to the PWS and --Proposed application of the individual to the contract effort (i.e., full time or part time).

Educational information must include, at a minimum: applicable military schools or courses, PWS related experience and, if applicable, degree, major, college, and date degree awarded. Desired qualifications and experience of each individual shall be appropriate to the proposed instructor category. Required years of experience must be clearly shown in the resume.

(3) Management Plan: Proposals shall provide a narrative demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed organizational structure and functional relationships. Offerors must address their methodology for the timely execution of the technical requirements identified in the PWS, how they will monitor performance, and control risk. Offerors must describe safety management, security, mishap reporting, task order administration, and the ability to effectively communicate with the COR and Contracting Officer.

The narrative shall also describe the offeror’s approach to quality management, associated metrics gathering and reporting procedures, and policies/procedures for managing and directing the effort. The offeror’s management plan shall demonstrate that management and its staff can communicate effectively to identify potential errors in performance and discuss a process for early identification and resolution of problems.

The offeror shall submit as an attachment a copy of their Risk Mitigation Plan to include medical in the event of injury (CASEVAC/MEDEVAC).

(4) Facilities: Proposals shall provide a narrative demonstrating how their facilities are able to comply with the requirements under section 9.0 of the PWS. The narrative shall also address the Offeror’s ability to schedule and access inactive naval vessels to use as training venues on both coasts, as well as the proposed mountainous training areas, including the location’s availability, and the timelines associated with reserving the venues.

3.3 Volume III –Past Performance Factor II

Offerors are instructed to provide a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) past performance references.

The references shall be relevant and recent for similar or related work during the last three years from the date of solicitation close. 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. Past Performance references may include federal, state, or local government and private contracts performed by the offeror that were similar in nature for this effort being evaluated.

For each Past Performance Reference, the Offeror shall provide the contract number, contract type, contract amount and contract value (amount ordered against the contract), date of award, brief description of the work, POC information, and whether the contract was performed by the prime contractor or subcontractor. If the offeror intends to subcontract, then at least two of the references shall be for the prime contractor.

For Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, at least one reference should be for the protégé with contracts for similar services.

Offerors are encouraged to provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the corrective actions taken. 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.

Offerors may request that each reference complete the “Offeror’s Past Performance Data” (OPPD) (Attachment 2).

A prime contractor shall not submit an OPPD for one of its subcontractors nor shall a subcontractor submit an OPPD for their prime contractor. OPPDs received of this nature will not be accepted or evaluated. OPPDs shall be emailed directly from the reference no later than the closing date and time of this solicitation to Christine Jordan at christine.jordan@navy.mil and should include the RFP Number, Offeror’s name, and “OPPD’ in the Subject Line of the email. OPPDs are not mandatory but assist the Government in evaluating an offeror’s past performance.

CPARS may be submitted in lieu or addition to OPPDs for any or all references.

To obtain past performance 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 or utilize any data available such as SAM, PPIRS etc. to evaluate past performance.

If the offeror possesses no relevant past performance, it must affirmatively state this fact in the Volume III submittal.

3.4 Volume IV – Price Factor III

This Volume shall include a completed Attachment 1 –ELINs. The total of the extended amounts shown on the spreadsheets represents the proposal’s total offer amount for evaluation for both the base period and the option periods.

Offeror’s must provide a breakdown of the price of ELIN A0001, inclusive of instructor salaries, with sufficient detail for the Government to perform price/cost analysis.

Each offeror’s price proposal shall include completed Entry Line Item Number (ELINs) schedule, as provided in the RFP (Attachment 1). Offerors are to provide a proposal for all CLINs. Offerors shall ensure all calculations are no more than two decimals. Calculations shall be made to two decimals ONLY.

Offerors are instructed to price a six-month option at the end of the last period of performance. This six-month option shall be priced separately from the rest of the proposal. Therefore, please do not include this option pricing in the total proposed cost, it shall be independent of the proposal. The six-month option pricing shall not exceed 50% of the last option year. Should clause 52.217-8 OPTION TO EXTEND SERVICES be executed, the six-month option will be incorporated into the contract.

Offerors must submit their proposal utilizing the not to exceed travel ceiling provided in Attachment 1.

Offerors must submit the proposal utilizing the quantities provided in Attachment 1. The quantities are provided for evaluation purposes only and does not necessarily reflect the actual needs of the Government. A proposal that leaves a blank or zeros for any ELIN unit prices, may not be considered for award.

***The total awarded contract value will be the contract ceiling. The total unobligated contract ceiling will be available for each period until the total contract ceiling amount has been obligated. Offerors are cautioned that the contract ceiling NTE award amount does NOT obligate the Government to order the NTE amount or any amount over the Minimum Guarantee of $1,000.

3.5 Volume V – Virtual or In-Person Demonstration Factor I

The Government reserves the right to request a virtual or in-person demonstration of the offeror’s ability to safely teach and conduct training.

If the Government elects, at its own discretion, to request demonstrations the Government will first evaluate written proposals for Factor I – Technical and Factor II – Past Performance, ranking offerors from highest to lowest rated using the adjectival rating tables.

Offeror’s overall written proposal ranking for Factor I – Technical must be at least marginal and for Factor II – Past Performance must receive a rating of at least neutral confidence to be eligible for a demonstration, therefore, Offeror’s are advised to ensure their written proposals thoroughly address all requirements. A rating of “unacceptable” under Factor I – Technical and/or “no confidence” or “limited confidence” under past performance will make the proposal ineligible for a demonstration.

Offerors eligible to participate in the demonstration will receive an invitation that will provide all the details for the demonstration session as well as the time and date that the demo will be conducted. Offerors selected for Demo Day will have an opportunity to demonstrate (Virtually or In-Person) their capability to evaluators.

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

Addendum to 52.212-2

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (NOV 2021) –

(Section M)

1.0 Basis for Award

1.1 The Government anticipates award of a single Indefinite Delivery-Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to the offeror deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.1 and whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be the most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. Offerors are advised that the Government reserves the right to make award to other than the lowest priced or the highest rated offeror if the Government determines that doing so would result in the overall best value to the Government.

1.2 The Government will utilize the Tradeoff source selection process in accordance with FAR 15.101-1. This process allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and cost/price and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal to achieve a best value contract award. The basis for award of a contract resulting from this solicitation will be an integrated assessment by the Contracting Officer of the results of the evaluation based on the evaluation factors and their importance as indicated below. The integrated assessment will include consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals but will not be based solely upon a simple count of strengths and weaknesses, but rather will be based on a qualitative evaluation. The Government reserves such right of flexibility in conducting the evaluation as is necessary to assure placement of a contract is in the Government's best interest.

Accordingly, the Government may award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or other than the Offeror with the highest evaluation rating.

1.3 When combined, the non-price factors Factor I (Technical), and Factor II (Past Performance) are significantly more important than Factor III (Price).

1.4 The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award based on initial proposals. Offerors that take exception to the Government’s technical requirements, propose any additional term or condition, or omit any required information without prior resolution with the Contracting Officer may be eliminated from consideration. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and, if this occurs, establish a competitive range. The Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range for purposes of efficiency to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among highest rated proposals. At the conclusion of discussions, the Contracting Officer will give each offeror in the competitive range an opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision.

***Offerors are advised that the Government reserves the right to reject any proposal that does not comply with proposal preparation/submission instructions contained in section L.

2.0 Evaluation Factors and Rating Criteria

2.1 The evaluation factors represent key areas of importance to be considered in the source selection decision. The Government will evaluate proposals based on the following Factors, listed in descending order of importance:

Factor I – Technical Factor II – Past Performance Factor III – Price

2.2 When combined, the non-cost evaluation factors are significantly more important than Factor III – Price. A finding of “Unacceptable” in either Factor I or “No Confidence” in Factor II will result in the entire proposal being determined unacceptable and thereby, ineligible for award. For example, if an offeror receives a rating of unacceptable under the Technical Factor, the proposal will not be evaluated further for Past Performance or Price.

2.3 Although price is significantly less important than a combined Technical and Past Performance, it should not be ignored. To the extent that the technical and past performance ratings of competing proposals approach parity, such that the advantages of one proposal over another are minimal, a difference in price will take on increased significance in the best value decision.

3.0 Factor I – Technical

3.1 The Government will evaluate Factor I and its sub-factors using the adjectival ratings/description described in table 1. below. The four sub-factors under Factor I will be rated individually, and these ratings will be used to help determine an overall rating for Factor I – Technical.

Any sub-factor rated as unacceptable will render the entire Factor I unacceptable and, as a result, will render the entire proposal ineligible for award. Of descending order of importance (most to least), the sub-factors are:

Sub-factor (1) Technical Approach, Sub-factor (2) Staffing, Sub-factor (3) Management Plan, and Sub-factor (4) Facilities

3.2 Sub-factor (1) Technical Approach

3.2.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to include the written narrative, video, and, if applicable, demonstration, to determine the Offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and ability to successfully execute the training courses of instruction identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Government will evaluate the extent in which the technical approach demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to accomplish the specified training objectives in a technically competent, and timely manner with a minimum of risk to the Government. The proposal 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.

3.2.2 If the Government elects to request demonstrations, then the final adjectival rating for this sub-factor will be based upon the combined evaluation of the written narrative, video and the demonstration, with the narrative and video, when combined, being of equal importance to the demonstration to determine an overall rating for sub-factor (1) Technical Approach.

3.3 Sub-factor (2) Staffing

3.3.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror’s staffing plan to determine the Offeror’s ability to provide all appropriate support personnel and qualified instructors, as well as evaluate the Offeror’s strategies to retain qualified personnel with minimal staff turnover. The Government will assess the offeror’s ability to properly staff this requirement to maximize training time.

3.3.2 The Government will evaluate all proposed personnel resumes to determine the extent to which the described knowledge, experience, and education are in accordance with the requirements in the PWS. Required qualifications listed in section 6.0 of the PWS must be met. If the resume is for an individual that is not currently an employee, the resume will be considered incomplete without a Letter of Intent and will not be considered in the evaluation.

3.3.3 The Government may give a higher rating to the Staffing subfactor to the extent that an Offeror proposes lead instructors who exceed the minimum qualifications IF those resumes contain strengths that represent a real value or benefit to the Government.

3.3.4 The Government may give a higher rating to the Staffing subfactor to the extent that an Offeror proposes more than the minimum one resume, but not exceeding three resumes, with lead instructors that meet or exceed the minimum qualifications.

3.3.5 The Government may give a higher rating to the Staffing subfactor to the extent that an Offeror proposes effective strategies to retain qualified personnel and reduce turnover if those strategies contain strengths that represent a real value or benefit to the Government.

3.4 Sub-factor (3) Management Plan

3.4.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror’s management plan based on the degree the proposed approach organizational structure shows clear and effective delineation of responsibility, authority, and communication through which the tasks will be managed for this requirement. Of significant concern to the Government is safety management and the outlined strategies in the risk mitigation plan to minimize risk.

3.5 Sub-factor (4) Facilities

3.5.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to determine if the offeror’s facilities meet the requirements listed in section 9.0 of the PWS and are capable of fulfilling the training requirements in section 4.0 of the PWS.

3.5.2 Government may give a higher rating to the Facilities subfactor to the extent that an Offeror proposes facilities that exceed the minimum qualifications IF those facilities have strengths that represent a real value or benefit to the Government.

3.5.3 The Government may give a higher rating to the Facilities subfactor to the extent that an Offeror proposes facilities that are readily available.

3.6 Inherent in a tradeoff evaluation is the fact the Contracting Officer, while always be mindful of Price, encourages strengths and/or innovative approaches. Accordingly, to the extent an offeror provides strengths to its quote, the offeror may receive a higher rating. Offerors are on notice that well documented technical capabilities, well-equipped facilities, a detailed staffing plan, and thorough management plan will be considered “strengths.” However, Offerors are advised that the Government may give a higher rating only if the strength(s) represent a real value or benefit to the Government. The Government will not pay a premium for severe overstaffing of the requirement.

3.7 EVALUATION Factor I – Technical: The Government will utilize a tradeoff source selection process using the adjectival ratings/descriptions in Table 1. to evaluate Factor I and its subfactors. Offerors failing to receive an ACCEPTABLE rating for this factor will not be evaluated for past performance or price. Inherent in the Factor I rating definition is a component for risk, reflecting the projected risk of the proposed approach to successfully perform the contract. To receive an “Acceptable” rating the proposal must clearly demonstrate that the offeror meets the requirements as defined by the PWS and all RFP attachments with, at worst, moderate risk.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Written Proposal, video, and demonstration (if applicable) indicate 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 Written Proposal, video, and demonstration (if applicable) indicate 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 Written Proposal, video, and demonstration (if applicable) meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Written Proposal, video, and demonstration (if applicable) has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Written Proposal, video, and demonstration (if applicable) 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.

* Offerors are reminded that receiving a score of “unacceptable” in any sub-factor will render the entire proposal ineligible for award.

The following terms and definitions will be used when performing the evaluations:

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

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

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

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Risk 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.

4.0 Factor II – Past Performance

4.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance to assess the Government’s confidence in the

Offeror’s probability of successfully performing the requirements as outlined in this RFP. Past performance will be evaluated on a subjective, integrated assessment of recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance. All proposals will be rated for past performance utilizing the adjectival ratings in Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating below.

4.2 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.

4.3 Past performance shall be evaluated based on Relevancy (the less relevant the past performance, the lower the rating), as well as Confidence (timeliness, quality, cost control, and customer satisfaction).

4.4 In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal and the information gathered from other sources available to the Government. These include, but are not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or other databases; interviews with Program managers/Contracting Officers, etc.

4.5 There are three aspects to past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. Past performance references not found to be recent will not be further evaluated for relevancy, and references not found to be relevant will not be further evaluated for quality.

4.5.1 Each past performance reference will be evaluated to determine recency, with recent past performance being performance under contracts accomplished within the past three (3) years from the date of solicitation close.

4.5.2 The Government will evaluate the relevancy of each past performance reference, with relevant past performance being performance under contracts for work that is for similar services, scope, complexity, dollar value, and/or contract type. For a protégé joint venture partner, contracts valued at 40% of this requirement’s dollar value will be considered equivalently to requirements of the same dollar value for other offerors, including the mentor partner.

4.5.3 Each past performance reference will be assigned an adjectival rating in accordance with the below table:

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

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.

4.5.4 The overall quality of the offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine how well the offeror performed those past contracts in regard to timeliness, quality, cost control, and customer satisfaction.

4.6 EVALUATION Factor II – Past Performance: The Government will assign an overall past performance confidence rating for each proposal using the adjectival ratings/descriptions in Table 3. This rating will be the Offeror’s overall rating for Past Performance. An overall rating of “No Confidence” will render the offeror ineligible for award and it will not be further evaluated for Price.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

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

No Confidence

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

4.6.1 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.

4.6.2 Offerors are reminded that they shall not omit Factor II and, if they possess no relevant past performance, they must affirmatively state this fact.

5.0 Factor III – Price

5.1 Offerors are reminded that a finding of “Unacceptable” in either Factor I or “No Confidence” in Factor II will result in the entire proposal being determined unacceptable, and therefore will not be further evaluated under Factor III – Price.

5.2 Although, when combined, the non-price factors Factor I (Technical), and Factor II (Past Performance) are significantly more important than Factor III (Price), Factor III – Price’s degree of importance will increase with the degree of equality of proposals in relation to Technical and Past Performance. Conversely, the significance of price will decrease when it is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government.

5.3 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.

5.4 Offerors are also reminded that the 6-month option under clause 52.217-8 OPTION TO EXTEND SERVICES

WILL NOT be incorporated at the time of award and shall be priced separately from the rest of the proposal and not included in the total proposed cost. The six-month option pricing shall not exceed 50% of the last option year.

5.5 Price/Cost Analysis will be performed to determine whether the proposed prices are fair and reasonable using one or more of the techniques listed in FAR 15.404-1. In order for an offeror to be eligible for award, the offeror shall propose on all ELINs. A price proposal that leaves a blank for any ELIN unit prices will not be considered for award.

5.6 The proposed ELIN unit prices (Attachment 1) will become part of the contract at time of award. The Government will use CLIN unit prices set forth in the IDIQ contract to establish the contract ceiling price for the services to be performed.

5.7 While the Government will not evaluate and/or determine a “realistic cost”, the Government will review the pricing structure and ELIN prices to determine if the offeror has submitted a materially unbalanced price proposal.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. Any inconsistency, within the price proposal or between the technical or price proposals, should be fully explained, or it may be considered a discrepancy within the offer and a risk in the Offeror’s ability to perform. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

6.0 Definitions:

Best Value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. See FAR 2.101.

Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

Communications are exchanges, between the Government and offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range.

Competitive Range is all the most highly rated proposals (based on the rating of each proposal against all evaluation criteria), unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency.

Deficiency is 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.

Discussions are negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range.

Evaluation Notice (EN) is the PCO’s written notification to the offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or in support of discussions.

Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

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 generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered 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 source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Requirements Documents are all aspects of the RFP that convey the needs of the Government to offerors, including the SOO, SOW, PWS, technical requirement documents, and system requirement documents.

Requiring Office is the entity (for example, a program management office or other organizational entity) responsible for translating user requirements into the requirements documents within the RFP that communicate those requirements to offerors.

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. (For firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk definition.)

Significant Strength is 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.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) is a group of senior Government personnel who provide counsel during the source selection process and must prepare the comparative analysis of the SSEB's evaluation results, when directed by the SSA.

Source Selection Authority (SSA) is the official designated to make the source selection decision.

Source Selection Team (SST) is a team that is tailored to the unique acquisition, tasked with carrying out a source selection. Composition of the team generally consists of the SSA, PCO (if different from the SSA), SSAC, SSEB, Advisors, Cost or Price Experts, Legal Counsel, Small Business Specialists, and other subject-matter experts.

Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) is the document that reflects the SSA's independent,…