N6134019R0022_Amend0001_SecM_Track_Changes.pdf

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 Basis for Award

1.1 The government intends to award a delivery order to the responsible Offeror offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements and is the most advantageous to the government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation Factors described further below.

1.2 The government does not evaluate every requirement of the solicitation under Section M of the RFP.

The awarded contractor, however, is required to comply with all requirements of the awarded delivery order.

Regardless of proposal submission requirements, delivery order performance will require execution of all requirements set forth in the delivery order.

1.3 Although the government may waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received, the failure to comply with terms and conditions of the solicitation may adversely impact the Offeror’s offeror’s evaluation results, and could result in the Offeror offeror being removed from consideration for award.

2.0 Offeror Responsibility to Submit an Unambiguous, Convincing Proposal

2.1 It is the Offeror’s offeror’s responsibility to draft a logical, unambiguous proposal that contains all pertinent information in sufficient detail so that government evaluators are able to meaningfully evaluate the Offeror’s offeror’s entire proposal.

3.0 Formal Source Selection Procedures Do Not Apply

3.1 Companies have informed NAWCTSD at regularly held local industry meetings that they want NAWCTSD to reduce the bid and proposal dollars they spend to respond to NAWCTSD’s solicitations. NAWCTSD does not want to waste its industry partners’ bid and proposal dollars or NAWCTSD’s resources. As a result, this delivery order evaluation and award is a streamlined evaluation and award conducted pursuant to FAR § 16.505. This streamlined evaluation and award contains fewer proposal submission requirements, a reduced page limitation, and is not being conducted using the formal source selection procedures of FAR Subpart 15.3.

3.2 Because this streamlined evaluation and award is not using the formal source selection procedures of FAR Subpart 15.3, procedures such as a competitive range determination, pre-award notifications to Offerors offerors excluded from a competitive range, pre-award debriefings, oral or written discussions with all Offerors offerors within a competitive range, and requesting final proposal revisions from all Offerors offerors included within a competitive range are not required. The identification of deficiencies and weaknesses, the government’s questions and comments, and the Offeror’s offeror’s answers and responses do not constitute discussions, clarifications, communications, or exchanges as used in FAR Subpart 15.3.

3.3 Under FAR § 16.505, the government is required to afford all Offerors offerors under the Multiple

Award Contract a fair opportunity to submit an offer and have that offer fairly considered. Accordingly, the government will evaluate each oOfferor’s proposal fairly, similarly, and in accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. If the government does not award on initial proposals, however, the government will not establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals. Accordingly, the oOfferor’s initial proposal must contain the oOfferor’s best terms, conditions, and prices. Pre-award debriefings and pre-award notifications of exclusion prior to award are not required under FAR Subpart 16.5, and the government will not provide them.

3.4 After the government has afforded all oOfferors under the multiple-award contract a fair opportunity to submit an offer and have that offer fairly considered, the government’s selection official may take or direct one or more of the following actions:

(1) award to the oOfferor whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements and is the most advantageous to the government based upon an integrated assessment of Section M’s evaluation Factors;

(2) obtain written resolutions or proposal revisions from the oOfferor whose initial proposal is the most advantageous to the government based upon an integrated assessment of the Section M evaluation Factors and would be awardable under the solicitation’s evaluation criteria but for one or two easily-resolvable deficiencies or clarifications — the resolution of which does not increase the oOfferor’s proposed total evaluated price set forth in Section B of the delivery order;

(3) obtain price supporting information, without obtaining a revised proposal or increase in proposed price, from the oOfferor whose initial proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements and is the most advantageous to the government based upon an integrated assessment of the Section M evaluation Factors;

(4) further consider only the oOfferors who are most likely to provide the most advantageous revised proposal to participate in one-on-one negotiations and submit proposed fixes and/or revised proposals;

(5) further consider only the oOfferor who provided the most advantageous proposal to the government based upon an integrated assessment of the Section M evaluation Factors, despite any weaknesses or deficiencies that may exist with that proposal, where it would be an unequivocal waste of the other oOfferors’ bid and proposal dollars to consider them further; or

(6) not award to any oOfferor.

4.0 Reserved.

5.0 Evaluation Factors for Award

5.1 The government will evaluate proposals using the following two Factors:

PAST PERFORMANCE

PRICE

5.2 Past Performance is significantly more important than Price.

5.3 Because Past Performance qualities are significantly more important than the amount of the price, the selection official is permitted to select an oOfferor that has proposed a higher price if the past performance of the oOfferor is worth the price premium. Thus, the selection official will perform a tradeoff between oOfferors’ evaluated prices and their assessments under the Past Performance Factor.

5.4 As required by FAR § 16.505, the delivery order selection official will document his or her basis for award. Upon written request to the Contracting Officer, unsuccessful oOfferors may receive a copy of the selection official’s decision document, redacted to remove other oOfferors’ confidential commercial information.

5.5 Because a successful oOfferor’s assessments under past performance is generally exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 — but so that unsuccessful oOfferors might have some idea of where they stood in the evaluation compared to the successful oOfferor — the government will assign one of the Past Performance Factor ratings below. The selection official, however, will not base his or her decision on the ratings because ratings are merely guides to intelligent decision making. The selection official will perform a tradeoff between oOfferors’ evaluated prices and their assessments under the Past Performance Factor.

5.6 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR RATINGS

The government will assign one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings to the oOfferor’s Past Performance Factor based upon the government’s confidence that the oOfferor will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based upon the oOfferor’s relevant past and present performance record.

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Rating Substantial Confidence Based on the oOfferor’s relevant performance record, the government has a high expectation that the oOfferor will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the oOfferor’s relevant performance record, the government has a reasonable expectation that the oOfferor will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No relevant performance record is available or the oOfferor’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Limited Confidence Based on the oOfferor’s relevant adverse performance record, the government has a low expectation that the oOfferor will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the oOfferor’s relevant adverse performance record, the government has no expectation that the oOfferor will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

1.1 Past Performance Contract References for Offerors

a) Past Performance will be evaluated to establish a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating that will reflect the government’s confidence that the oOfferor will successfully perform the requirements in the solicitation, based upon the prime and principal team member’s (if proposed) recent and relevant past and present performance record.

b) The Government will evaluate a maximum of five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contract references of the prime and principal team members’ relevant recent past performance.

Up to three (3) of the five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contract references may be from principal team members, with a maximum of two (2) references provided for a single principal team member.

c) There are two aspects to the past performance assessment: Relevancy and Demonstrated Past Performance.

An initial consideration in determining the relevancy of a past performance contract reference involves Recency.

Recency is expressed as a time period during which past performance contract references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. A recency determination will be made for each offeror’s past performance contract reference. A determination of Recent will be assigned to offerors’ submissions which contain performance within three five (5) years of the RFP issuance date. A determination of Not Recent will be assigned to offeror submissions which do not contain performance within three five (5) years of the RFP issuance date, or for which the Past Performance contract reference award date cannot be determined, and the submission will not be evaluated or rated. Only submissions meeting the parameters established in this RFP will be evaluated to receive a Relevance or Past Performance Confidence rating. In general, more recent performance will be considered more relevant than less recent performance. After the government has compiled a full assessment of the prime and principal team members’ relevance and demonstrated past performance for each past performance contract references, the government will assign a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating to the oOfferor. The assessment reflects the government’s level of confidence in the oOfferor’s ability to successfully perform the solicited effort based on the prime and proposed principal team members’ record of relevant past and present performance.

d) The Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings are set forth in a previous table. As part of the assessment, the government may also take into account any show cause notices, cure notices and terminations for default that are deemed relevant to this solicitation’s effort.

e) In assigning a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating or in the selection official’s tradeoff decision:

• past performance effort of the entity performing as a prime will be considered more significant than a past performance effort of the entity performing as a subcontractor;

• past performance contract references provided for the Prime will provide a greater level of confidence to the Government than references provided on behalf of a proposed principal team member;

• performance under government contracts is generally considered more relevant than performance under commercial contracts, all other things being equal;

• past performance questionnaire (PPQ) information provided by another member of the Offeror’s offeror’s proposed team is not given as much weight; and

• past performance contract references for which the primary scope is courseware development, will generally be considered of more significance than for those which the primary purpose scope is not courseware development. Further, for past performance contract references for which the primary scope is not courseware development, the less that the Ddemonstrated Ppast Pperformance information addresses courseware development, the less significant these past performance contract references will be.

f) If an offeror proposes the resources of a principle team member – which is defined as a subcontractor, joint venture owner (joint venturer), partnership owner (partner), corporate parent, division, subsidiary, or affiliate that is proposed to provide at least 20% of the total delivery order price, inclusive of options — the offeror will not receive past performance credit of the proposed principle team member unless the offeror’s proposal demonstrates how the resources of the principle team member – its workforce, management, facilities or other resources – will in fact be provided to perform at least 20% of the proposed total delivery order price, inclusive of options. Merely stating that the offeror has access to the resources of a principle team member is insufficient.

1.2 Relevancy of the Past Performance Contract References

a) The government will evaluate the oOfferor’s “Past Performance Contract Reference Worksheet,” Attachment L-2, to determine the information is complete and accurate in accordance with Section L.B.1.2. The oOfferor’s rationale in the “Relevancy Information of the Past Performance Contract Reference Worksheet,” Attachment L-4, will be evaluated to assess relevance. In accordance with Section L.B.1.2(hg) the oOfferor’s Past Performance Statement of Work, Performance Work Statement, Statement of Objectives, or Specifications and Contract section or paragraph references in the “Relevancy Information of the Past Performance Contract Reference Worksheet,” Attachment L-4, also will be used to assess the oOfferor’s Relevancy rationale.

b) For each past performance contract reference submitted on the Relevancy Information of the Past

Performance Contract Reference Worksheet, Attachment L-4, the government will evaluate the past performance contract reference to determine how recent and relevant it is to this solicitation’s effort. Any past performance contract reference deemed to be Not Relevant will receive no further consideration, with no opportunity to submit a replacement, even if the government requests revised proposals.

c) In determining relevancy, the government will utilize the completed “Relevancy Information of the Past

Performance Contract Reference Worksheet,” Attachment L-4, to compare the contract types, total dollar amounts, relevant dollar amounts of the effort actually performed, the location and divisions of the company that performed the effort, the period of performance of the past performance contract reference, and the following scope and, magnitude, and complexity of the past performance contract reference effort to the effort proposed to be performed under this solicitation. For principal team members, the government will compare the scope and, magnitude, and complexity of the principal team member’s past performance contract reference to the effort the principal team member is proposed to perform for the instant effort.

Each of the five (5) Past Performance Contract References submitted by the oOfferor will be evaluated independently and not as an aggregate of the five (5).

• Scope – The government will compare the scope of the instant solicitation in comparison to the scope of the work performed in the oOfferor’s past performance contract reference. The government will use the past performance contract references’ Statement of Work, Performance Work Statement, Statement of Objectives, and/or Specification, and Contract Document to review the relevancy of the scope of the past performance contract reference requirements as it compares to designing, developing and delivering interactive courseware (ICW) products (similar to the instant solicitation SOW Scope figure 2 and as defined in Appendix C) and following a similar ADDIE model as described in SOW Scope figure 1 of the instant solicitation’s SOW. The following instant solicitation’s SOW supporting paragraphs will be considered for evaluating purposes: Design Phase (SOW 3.3.1), Development Phase (SOW 3.3.2), Implementation Phase (3.3.3), Evaluation Phase (3.3.4) phases and 3.4, Systems Engineering. Past performance contract references where ICW is delivered will be given more weight than past performance contract references where the contractor is supporting in a service contract.

• Magnitude – The government will compare the prime or principal team member’s total relevant dollar amount of the past performance contract reference to the amount it is proposing to complete for the instant solicitation requirement (the instant solicitation dollar amount shall match the amount identified in Section L.B.1.1.c). The total relevant dollar amount of the past performance contract reference equates to the dollar amount that reflects delivering ICW.

• Complexity – The government will compare the complexity amount of ICW hours completed/to be completed the work performed by the Pprime or its proposed principal team members under the past performance contract reference to the complexity amount of ICW hours to be completed the work required under the instant solicitation in terms of the number of ICW hours. The government estimates 5,378 ICW hours (inclusive of options) for the instant solicitation. The amount of ICW hours to be completed by the prime or principal team member on the instant solicitation will be quantified as illustrated in Section L.B.1.2.g.3, and compared to the hours of ICW completed/to be completed for each proposed past performance contract referenceComplexity will be measured for each proposed past performance contract reference by comparing the prime or principal team member’s proposed ICW hours, to be quantified as illustrated in Section L.B.1.2.g.3, to the hours of ICW delivered or to be delivered for each proposed past performance contract reference.

d) More relevant past performance 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. The government will assign each past performance contract reference one of the following relevancy ratings:

Past Performance Contract Relevancy Ratings

Rating Very Relevant Present/past performance contract effort involved essentially the same scope and, magnitude, and complexities proposed to be performed in response to this solicitation.

Relevant Present/past performance contract effort involved similar scope , and magnitude, and complexities proposed to be performed in response to this solicitation.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance contract effort involved some of the same scope and, magnitude, and complexities proposed to be performed in response to this solicitation.

Not Relevant Present/past performance contract effort involved little or none of the scope, and magnitude, and complexities proposed to be performed in response to this solicitation.

1.3 Demonstrated Past Performance of the Past Performance Contract References

a. After relevancy of a past performance contract reference is established, the government will evaluate the prime or proposed principal team member’s demonstrated past performance for that past performance contract reference in the following areas:

o Quality of Product or Service. The government will evaluate the Prime or proposed principal team member’s past performance in the delivery of quality supplies and services, which includes meeting technical requirements, and will also incorporate pertinent assessments from CPARS and Past Performance Questionnaires, if they exist.

o Schedule. The government will evaluate the Prime or proposed principal team member’s past performance in meeting schedule requirements, which will incorporate pertinent assessments from CPARS and Past Performance Questionnaires, if they exist.

o Program Management and Subcontract Management. The government will evaluate the Prime or proposed principal team member’s past performance in program management, subcontract management, and cooperation with the customer, which will incorporate pertinent assessments from CPARS and Past Performance Questionnaires, if they exist.

b. For those cases where the contractor may have had past performance problems likely to occur again, the government will assess whether the Prime or proposed principal team member’s successfully applied improvements to resolve those recurring problems. Problems not addressed by the Prime or proposed principal team members are considered to still exist.

2.0 PRICE

2.1 Prices: The government will evaluate the oOfferor’s Price Volume for its proposed total price;

price reasonableness; and whether the oOfferor’s proposed CLIN prices are balanced.

a) Total Price: The total evaluated price will be the sum of all CLINs and Option CLINs (0001 – 1021).

b) Price Reasonableness. Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. It is expected that this delivery order award decision will include a determination that there is adequate price competition and that the proposed prices are reasonable. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the government to determine reasonableness. If, after receipt of a proposal, the Procuring Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR § 15.403-1(b) apply, the oOfferor may be requested to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with

FAR § 15.403-4.

c) Unbalanced Pricing: As required by FAR § 15.404-1(g)(2), the government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze the unit prices of similar type CLINs (same media type, T3, and Pilot) for purposes of assessing balanced pricing. Unbalance pricing may impact the reasonableness of the proposed price. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the government. This is not a price realism analysis.

2.2 The government may decide — but is not required to decide — to obtain some kind of price support information from an oOfferor to assess or confirm that oOfferor’s understanding of the solicitation’s requirements.

2.3 Even if the government needs the price support information to determine whether the oOfferor’s proposal is acceptable for award, the exchange of information is not “discussions” as that term is used at FAR Subpart 15.3, in part because this competition is not being conducted under FAR Subpart 15.3. If the oOfferor is the apparent successful oOfferor, that oOfferor will not be permitted to submit a revised proposal or to increase its proposed price as part of its price support information.

2.4 If the government rejects an oOfferor’s proposal after receipt of price support information, the government’s determination to reject the proposal is not a responsibility determination that the oOfferor cannot perform the effort at that price. Thus, if the apparent successful oOfferor is a small business, the government will not seek a certificate of competency from the Small Business Administration if the government rejects that apparent successful oOfferor for award after receipt of the price support information.

2.5 Administrative Completeness: Each oOfferor’s proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the oOfferor completed the following information requested in Section L:

a. Signed Standard Form 33 for basic solicitation and each amendment.

b. Statement Regarding Assumptions, Conditions, Exceptions, Deviations or Waivers.

The oOfferors are advised that taking exception or deviating or requesting waivers (including making assumptions and conditions that may be construed as taking exception, deviation or waiver) from any term or condition of the RFP may make an offer unacceptable, and the proposal unawardable.

c. Completed Section K.

d. A statement identifying the proposal expiration period. The proposal expiration period should be no less than 270 days after proposal submission.

e. Offeror Representatives and Information

f. Business Systems Status Table