Section L Instructions with M.docx

1. Instructions:

1. Offerors shall submit their proposals in accordance with the following preparation instructions. The Government will consider any failure on the part of an offeror to comply with these instructions to be an indication of the quality of performance it can expect during contract performance. Therefore, the Government encourages offerors to contact the contracting officer (KO), and contract specialist in writing in order to request an explanation of any aspect of these instructions.

2. A proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements but rather provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror meets these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s proposal.

3. If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the KO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is asking the KO to consider as related to the omission or error.

4. Relationship between Instructions and Evaluation: Your attention is directed to the functional relationship between Sections L and M of this solicitation. Section L provides information for the purpose of organizing the proposal and establishing submission instructions and is not intended to be all inclusive. Section M describes the evaluation process and factors/subfactors for award. Since the Government evaluation of proposals will cover areas identified in section M, proposals should address all such areas of evaluation.

5. ALL INQUIRIES shall be made via email and directed to Jacqueline Edgerton, contract specialist, and Edwin Baldoria, contracting officer, at jacqueline.edgerton@navy.mil and edwin.baldoria@navy.mil. To ensure the Government is able to adequately address and respond to offeror requests for clarification (RFCs) via amendment if applicable, it is requested questions be submitted no later than 21 November, 2019 at 2:00 pm Pacific Standard Time (PST). The government reserves the right to not answer any questions received after 21 November, 2019 at 2:00 pm PST. Furthermore, offerors should note that the proposal due date will not be extended solely on the basis of questions received.

b. Proposal Submission Instructions:

1. Time of Submission: Proposals are DUE NOT LATER THAN 2:00 P.M. PST, 3 December, 2019. Late proposals will not be considered.

2. Method of Delivery: Proposal submissions shall be via email to jacqueline.edgerton@navy.mil and edwin.baldoria@navy.mil on or before the proposal due date.

3. Electronic Delivery of Proposals: Proposals are DUE NOT LATER THAN 2:00 P.M. PST, 3 December, 2019. Late proposals will not be considered. The timeliness of proposals will be determined in accordance with (IAW) FAR 52.215-1(c)(3)(ii)(A).

4. Electronic File Format:

Only the following extensions shall be used:

.docx for Microsoft® Word files .xlsx for Microsoft® Excel files .pdf for Adobe® Acrobat™ files

Offeror shall not embed sound or video files into submittals. Graphics, tables, photographs, and other data beyond the capability of Microsoft® Word ™, Microsoft® Excel ™, or not in currently NMCI- supported applications may be submitted in Adobe Acrobat format. Any submission document that requires a “wet signatures” or other data input by hand shall be scanned and formatted in Adobe Acrobat (PDF).

All spreadsheets shall be in Microsoft Excel format such that each mathematical equation is obvious. No fields shall be password protected.

6. Volume Layout and Page Limitations: Proposals shall be submitted in the following quantities and volume layout. At a minimum, each section as outlined below shall constitute a separate file.

Page Limitations

Sub-factors A Sub-factors B Sub-factor C

No Page Limitation

II

Contractor Past Performance Information

No more than 3 relevant companies Attachment J5

a. Text size shall be no smaller than what is equivalent to Microsoft Word, Times New Roman, 10 point, uncompressed font.

b. Pages shall be single sided, with a minimum of one inch margins on all sides. Pages shall be dated and numbered sequentially by volume. A header should be present in each volume submission stating the volume number, title, solicitation identification, and the offeror's name.

c. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used with an explanation for each.

d. Elaborate format and/or color representations are not desirable.

e. Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used when necessary to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 by 17 inches in size. For tables, charts, graphs, and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 8 point, Times New Roman.

NOTE: The government’s strong preference is for clear, concise proposals that support the evaluation criteria listed in section M of the solicitation.

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(i) Technical capability of the item offered to meet the Government requirement;

- Sub-Factor A: IAW 3.2.1.5 of the Statement of Work (SOW) - Preliminary Design, Conceptual rendering, sketches, photos or technical drawings of the proposed design showing:

1) General design intent to meet section 3.2.3.

2) Type/location of gamma radiation attenuation materials to meet section 3.2.4.1.

3) Proof of past performance / prior similar products

-Sub Factor B: IAW 4.1.2 of the Statement of Work (SOW) - Proposed Welding Procedures, AWS compliant welding procedure.

- Sub Factor C: IAW 4.2.1 of the Statement of Work (SOW) - Proposed Evaluation procedures, NDT written practice, MT procedure, and the MT procedure qualification demonstrating compliance with NAVSEA Technical Publication TP T9074-AS- GIB- 010/271

(ii) Past performance; and

(ii) Price

Technical and past performance, when combined, are approximately equal to price.

Factors and sub-factors will be graded as follows:

Factor I - Technical. The term “technical,” as used herein, refers to non-price factors other than past performance. More than one “technical” factor can be used and titled to match the specific evaluation criteria appropriate for the RFQ. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess whether the offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. Some of the aspects affecting an offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements may include technical approach, key personnel and qualifications, facilities, and others. Once the minimum requirements are established, the team shall evaluate the offeror’s proposal against these requirements to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table C-1.

Table C-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Factor II – Past Performance. The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

Past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in Table C-2.

First, past performance will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant shall be unique to each LPTA source selection. Therefore, the solicitation shall establish the criteria for recency and relevancy in relation to the specific requirement being procured. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an offeror’s contract performance history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the requirements of the contract that is contemplated to be awarded as a result of the evaluation of proposals in the current procurement.

Note: For this solicitation, “recency and relevancy” is defined as performance of similar service (i.e. towing of nuclear laden barge) within the last 3 years.

Second, the past performance evaluation will determine how well the offeror performed on the prior contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

Table C-2. Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation

Sources are as follows:

• Past performance information may be provided by the offeror, as solicited.

• Past performance information may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition.

• Past performance information may be obtained from established systems such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials.

The past performance evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

Factor III – Price. A Firm Fixed Price – Firm Fixed Price contract will be awarded to the offer that is determined lowest price technically acceptable

Price analysis will normally be used to determine the reasonableness of total evaluated price to support the selection of the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror. Although in exceptional cases when the determination of fair and reasonable price requires additional information (e.g. only one offer is received), the Contracting Officer will conduct analysis to support the determination of whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable.

The burden of proof for price credibility rests with the Offeror. Offerors are cautioned that, to the extent proposed price appear unrealistic, the Government may infer either a lack of understanding of the requirements, increased risk of performance, or lack of credibility on the part of the offeror.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options 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).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, 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.

(End of provision)