DARTS_RFP_N61340-19-R-0048_0001.docx

N6134019R0048

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

CONTINUATION PAGE

1) The purpose of this amendment is to:

a) Removed the option designation from FY20 CLINs 1001 through 1590.

b) Revised Section L, Paragraph 5.0 changing the date and time for Government receipt of RFP questions.

c) Provided a revised DD Form 254 updating the solicitation number from N61340-19-F-0048 to N61340-19-R-0048 and incorporating additional language on foreign travel.

d) Revised language in the Staffing Chart.

2) As a result of this amendment, the following documents are provided:

a) New conformed RFP document, marked “Amendment 01”

b) Revised DD Form 254, dated 21 Feb 2019 in block 17(i)

c) New site specific Area Wage Determinations for Whidbey Island, WA, NAS Jacksonville, and Mayport, FL.

d) Revised Attachment L-2 CIS Staffing Chart, marked “Amendment 01”

e) Revised Attachment L-3 Price Evaluation Worksheet, marked “Amendment 01”

f) RFP Questions and Answers

g) Pre-Proposal Conference slides and Site Visits attendance rosters.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 1001

The option status has changed from Option to No Status.

CLIN 1050

CLIN 1101

CLIN 1201

CLIN 1301

CLIN 1350

CLIN 1401

CLIN 1450

CLIN 1490

CLIN 1501

CLIN 1550

CLIN 1590

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

SECTION J

EXHIBITS

Exhibit A -- DD Forms 1423:

Exhibit A00A – Contractor OPSEC Plan Exhibit A001 – Contractor Funding Status Report (CFSR) Exhibit A002 – Conference Minutes Exhibit A005 – Contractor Inventory/Utilization Report of GFP/GFI Exhibit A006 – Mobilization CI Contractor Performance Summary Report Exhibit A007 – CIS Contractor Performance Summary Report (CPSR) Exhibit A009 – Quality System Plan

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 - Addendum B Performance Work Statement (PWS) 6643-A-0449 for CIS at NAS Jacksonville, FL, NS Mayport, FL, and NAS Whidbey Island, WA.

(a) Addendum BA_DARTS-AAAT CIS Appendix BA

(b) Addendum BB_DARTS-AAAT CIS Appendix BB

Attachment 2 - Price Breakout Worksheet (to be completed at award)

Attachment 3 - DARTS_DD Forms 1423 Delivery Addresses/CDRL Addressee List

Attachment 4 - SCA Price Adjustment – DRFP

Attachment 5 - Travel Service Log - DRFP

Attachment 6 - Travel Service Request - DRFP

Attachment 7 - Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254) Rev 1.

Attachment 8 - PACT Guide

Attachment 9 - Wage Determinations Attachment 9a - DOL Wage Determinations Whidbey Island, WA Attachment 9b – DOL Wage Determinations NAS Jacksonville and Mayport, Florida

ATTACHMENTS REFERENCED IN SECTION L

Attachment L-1 – Solicitation Question & Answer Form Attachment L-2 – CIS Staffing Chart Rev 1.

Attachment L-3 – Price Evaluation Worksheet Rev 1.

Attachment L-4 – Individual Subcontracting Plan Goals Sheet Attachment L-5 – Site Visits & Pre-Proposal Conference Information

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

PART A: GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.0 GENERAL

Section L contains instructions on how to prepare and submit proposals in response to this solicitation. Nonconformance with these instructions may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation and elimination from consideration.

The Government will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal. The Offeror has the burden to submit a proposal that convincingly demonstrates that the Offeror has an accurate understanding of the requirements and the associated risks; that the Offeror has viable solutions for the requirements and potential risk areas; and that the Offeror is able, willing and competent to devote the resources necessary to meet the requirements.

It is the Offeror’s responsibility to submit a proposal that enables Government evaluators to effectively evaluate and substantiate the validity of any assertions set forth in the Offeror’s proposal. Assume the Government has no prior knowledge of an Offeror’s facilities and experience. Accordingly, do not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements. Statements that the Offeror will provide a particular feature or objective without explaining how the Offeror proposes to meet that feature or objective are generally inadequate and may adversely impact the Government’s evaluation assessment of the Offeror. Also inadequate are the following types of statements:

· unsupported statements that the Offeror allegedly understands the requirements and risks;

· unsupported statements that the Offeror allegedly can or will comply with requirements;

· unsupported statements that merely paraphrase the requirements;

· undefined or explained statements such as “best commercial practices will be used”;

· undefined or explained statements such as “standard procedures will be used”; and

· undefined or explained statements such as “well-known techniques will be employed.”

Alternate proposals are not acceptable. In addition, taking exception or deviating from any term or condition of the RFP may make an offer unacceptable, and the proposal unawardable, unless the RFP expressly authorizes such an exception or deviation with regard to that specific term or condition.

There is no need to repeat information in the same volume or in more than one volume. If an overlap exists, the detailed information should be included in the most logical place and summarized and referenced in other areas. With the exception of the Price/Small Business Volume, no cost or pricing information should appear in any volume.

2.0 NOT USED

3.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT

Written proposals must be formatted using a Times New Roman 12-point normal font, no reduction permitted, single-spaced, 1-inch margins all around, and formatted for standard 8.5 x 11- inch paper. All pages should be numbered with section and page numbers. When foldout pages are used, they must not exceed 11 x 17 inches and will be counted as 1 page. Foldout pages are acceptable for attachments L-2, Contract Instructional Services (CIS) Staffing Chart, and L-3, Price Evaluation Worksheet (PEW). Drawings may be provided separately and may be any size, with font of any size, but should be folded to approximately 8.5 x 11-inch standard size and will count as 1 page. Graphs shall be presented in no smaller than a 10-point font.

4.0 PROPOSAL VOLUMES

All proposals must be UNCLASSIFIED. Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted as one paper original with additional paper and separate Compact Disk Read-Only Memory (CD-ROM) copies as specified in the table below. The separate CD-ROM copy of the Technical Volume and the separate CD-ROM copy of the Price Volume must be fully compatible with Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2016, with spreadsheets unprotected. For information not supported by Microsoft Office products, the Offeror must provide the latest Adobe Acrobat reader on each CD-ROM. Each separate CD-ROM is to be labeled for content and the Offeror’s name. If a discrepancy exists between the original paper version of the proposal and a CD-ROM “copy,” the paper original will take precedence.

The original of each volume shall be two-hole punched at the top of each page and delivered in pressboard classification folders (two partition, six prong, one-inch bonded fasteners). The copies of each volume shall be provided separately in a 3-ring binder. The binders should be of an appropriate thickness for the number of pages it contains (e.g., a 30-page book shall not be placed in a 2-inch binder).

Page limitations for each volume are specified in the table below. Proposal pages beyond the specified limit will not be evaluated. Title/cover pages, table of contents, list of figures/tables, and divider tabs do not count towards the page limit.

Each volume shall contain the following information:

· Cover and title page

· Title of proposal and proposal number as applicable

· Offeror’s name, address,

· POC name, phone number, and email address

· RFP number

· Proposal volume/book number

· Copy number

· Table of Contents (The table of contents must provide sufficient detail to enable easy location of important elements)

· Use tabs and dividers

3 Paper Copies 1 CD-ROM Copy

1 Paper Copy 1 CD-ROM Copy

* The twenty-page limit does not include the required L-2, CIS Staffing Chart.

** “None” does not indicate a desire or intent for full Price volumes. No cost build-up of the Offeror’s pricing inputs into Attachment L-3, Price Evaluation Worksheet (PEW) is required. Rather, the Offeror is encouraged to present as short and concise a Price / Small Business Volume as is reasonable for the Offeror to effectively convey all relevant Price data to enable the government to accomplish its evaluation.

5.0 SOLICITATION QUESTIONS

Questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted in writing with the use of Attachment L-1, Solicitation Question and Answer Form. Each question or comment should reference the applicable document, page number, and paragraph number. Do not include any proprietary information in your question, because the Government will provide the question and answer to all potential Offerors. All questions must be submitted for the solicitation no later than 3:00 pm Eastern Time on 20 February 2019 to Richard Bend, Contract Specialist, at richard.bend@navy.mil. The Government is under no obligation to try to answer questions received after that date, but may answer the question if time permits.

6.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Clearly mark all packages with “Solicitation number: N6134019R0048”. The submission date for the proposal shall be no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 of Standard Form 33 of the RFP. Offerors shall not submit proposals by facsimile or via email.

1. Proposals Submitted by Commercial Carrier: Offerors shall submit proposals via United States Postal Service or through a commercial carrier using the following address:

Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division Code: AIR-2.5.3.2 (Attention: Richard Bend) 12211 Science Drive Orlando, FL 32826-3224 Solicitation Number: N6134019R0048

(a) Definitions. As used in this provision —

“Proposal modification” is a change made to a proposal before the solicitation’s closing date and time, or made in response to an amendment, or made to correct a mistake at any time before award.

“Proposal revision” is a change to a proposal made after the solicitation closing date, at the request of or as allowed by a Contracting Officer.

“Time,” if stated as a number of days, is calculated using calendar days, unless otherwise specified, and will include Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. However, if the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then the period shall include the next working day.

(b) Amendments to solicitations. If this solicitation is amended, all terms and conditions that are not amended remain unchanged. Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment to this solicitation by the date and time specified in the amendment(s).

(c) Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of proposals. Offerors are responsible for submitting proposals, and any modifications or revisions, so as to reach the Government office designated in the solicitation by the time specified in the solicitation.

This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed—in whole or in part—for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If, however, a task or delivery order is awarded to this Offeror as a result of — or in connection with — the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting task or delivery order. This restriction does not limit the Government's right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets]; and

(b) Mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend:

Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal.

7.0 PROPOSAL PACKAGING

The Offeror shall package the proposal volumes in cartons or equivalent packaging containers in the most efficient manner possible, grouping like-volumes to the maximum extent possible. Each container shall be single-person portable. One container shall include all original proposal volumes. Each box should include a packing slip detailing the contents, to include the volume number, title, and copy number. Also, each box should be stamped or marked “For Official Use Only.”

8.0 OTHER INFORMATION

1. Any proposal submitted requires a minimum acceptance period of 180 calendar days. The “Acceptance Period” is the number of calendar days available to the government for awarding a Task Order from the date specified in this solicitation for receipt of proposals. This provision supersedes any language pertaining to the acceptance period that may appear elsewhere in this solicitation. The government may reject an offer allowing less than the minimum acceptance period. The Offeror agrees to execute all that it has undertaken to do, in compliance with its offer, if that offer is accepted in writing within the acceptance period stated above.

2. A Pre-Proposal Conference will be held on 7 February 2019 and Site Visits conducted from 4-7 Jan 19, for the purpose of explaining the requirements and terms and conditions of the solicitation. All prospective Offerors were urged to attend. In no event will failure to attend the conference constitute grounds for a claim after award of the Task Order. Instructions issued pertaining to these events were provided at Attachment L-5 Site Visits & Pre-Proposal Conference Information.

PART B: SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

VOLUME 1: TECHNICAL

The Offeror shall utilize the following Section L Attachment to provide information for this volume:

(1) Attachment L-2, CIS Staffing Chart.

In responding to the below, the Offeror shall ensure its proposal information complies with Part A, Section 1.0 above and is sufficient for the Government to evaluate in accordance with Section M.

1.1 MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Proposed approach to manage the DARTS/AAAT CIS program; specifically address the following:

1.1.1 Addendum B, 4.5.1

The Offeror shall discuss how it will staff Site Manager (SM) and Alternate Site Manager (ASM) positions and how it will foster or enhance its SM’s ability to manage contract performance and ensure open communication between Government and Contractor at the sites.

1.1.2 Addendum B, Part 3

The Offeror shall identify and discuss what the Offeror believes to be the three most critical risks or issues that could impact successful program performance at Contractor Support Date (CSD). For each risk identified, discuss its mitigation strategy. For any issues identified, discuss intended corrective actions.

Addendum B, Parts 4 & 6

The Offeror shall identify and discuss what the Offeror believes to be the three most critical risks or issues that could impact sustained program performance (after CSD). For each risk identified, discuss its mitigation strategy. For any issues identified, discuss intended corrective actions.

1.1.3 Addendum B, 4.8

The Offeror shall identify and discuss specific elements of the Offeror’s quality management approach and describe how those elements would identify, prevent and correct deficiencies in the quality of service performed prior to it becoming unacceptable. The Offeror shall use performance risks and issues identified in paragraph 1.1.2 to illustrate the effectiveness of its approach.

1.2 CONTRACT INSTRUCTOR (CI) RECRUITMENT, STAFFING, AND RETENTION APPROACH

Proposed approach to recruit, staff, and retain qualified CIs; specifically address the following:

1.2.1 Addendum B, Part 3, and Appendices BA & BB

The Offeror shall discuss its approach to recruit and staff CIs during mobilization in order to meet instructional requirements at CSD. In addition to its narrative discussion, the Offeror shall complete and submit Attachment L-2 CIS Staffing Chart in accordance with the instructions found in the Attachment. The L-2 submission shall be consistent with the narrative discussions, here and below.

1.2.2 Addendum B, Part 4, and Appendices BA & BB

Explain how the Offeror calculated the hours in an individual CI’s work-year that are available for primary and additional duties (i.e. show the Offeror’s calculation of CI labor hours estimated for sick and annual leave, corporate requirements, mandatory training, collateral duties, scheduling inefficiencies, etc.). Based on this calculation, describe the Offeror’s approach to support 100% Instruction Factor (IF).

1.2.3 Addendum B, Part 4, and Appendices BA & BB

Describe the Offeror’s approach to long-term CI retention and recruitment (i.e. how it proposes to retain and recruit qualified CIs at each site).

VOLUME 2: PRICE

The Offeror shall utilize the following Section L Attachments to provide information for this volume:

(1) Attachment L-3, Price Evaluation Worksheet (PEW); (2) Attachment 9 and 9a, Wage Determinations (WDs); and (3) Attachment L-4, Individual Subcontracting Plan Goals Sheet.

In responding to the below, the Offeror shall ensure its proposal information complies with Part A, Section 1.0 above and is sufficient for the Government to evaluate in accordance with Section M.

Offerors shall submit a completed Attachment L-3 PEW which represents Section B pricing. All prices shall be in whole dollars. No formulas shall be hidden or locked. The Offeror shall ensure that prices are entered for all unit prices, including all optional stepladders specified in the PEW. Offerors are to utilize the Microsoft® Excel spreadsheet provided as part of this RFP when providing the electronic copy of the price proposal. Note: Pricing for 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services will be at the same rate as in Lot V, FY24.

This Solicitation, and the resulting Task Order, are subject to the Service Contract Act (SCA) of 1965, as amended, and to FAR 52.222-41 contained in Section I of each Offeror’s FTSS IV Basic Contract. The Offeror shall propose in compliance with the current FY20 hourly rates set forth in the Department of Labor (DoL) Area WDs, Attachment 9, and shall not include escalation for adjustments for covered employees under the SCA, even if escalation for FY21 and beyond is included in a DoL Area WD for proposed positions not covered by a DoL.

The Offeror shall explain any appearance of unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items / Tasks as proposed in Attachment L-3 PEW is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

In addition to the above information necessary to evaluate the Price Factor, the following administrative information shall be submitted within Volume 2: PRICE

a. Signed Standard Form 33 for basic solicitation and signed SF 30 each amendment (as applicable);

b. Completed Section K provided in full text;

c. A statement identifying the proposal expiration period. The proposal expiration period shall be no less than 180 days after proposal submission;

d. An assertion that it possesses a Top Secret Facility Clearance. If at any time prior to award an Offeror’s Top Secret Facility Clearance status changes it shall notify the Contract Specialist immediately at richard.bend@navy.mil;

e. An assertion that all SCA covered employee rates are, at a minimum, in compliance with the FY19 hourly rates set forth in the applicable CBA or WD;

f. An explanation of the intent and the extent to which the rate applies for any CLINs proposed at a rate of $0 (as applicable);

g. Disclosure and identification of any intended or proposed subcontractor that exceeds 10% of the TEP, including CAGE code and socio-economic status;

h. The mailing address, telephone, fax numbers, and facility codes for the Offeror’s local Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), and Government Paying Office. In addition, please provide the name, telephone number, fax number and email address for the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) at the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA);

i. The Offeror’s TIN, DUNS and CAGE code.

j. Small Business Subcontracting Plan Goals on Attachment L-4, Individual Subcontracting Plan Goals Sheet. If the Offeror is a participant in the DoD Comprehensive Subcontracting Test Program specified in DFARS 219.7, rather than submitting Small Business Subcontracting Plan Goals Sheet on Attachment L-4, the Offeror shall describe how Small Business participation on this Task Order will contribute to its overall Comprehensive Subcontracting goals (for Large Business Offerors only). If a Small Disadvantaged Business goal is below 5% Offerors shall provide rationale in accordance with NAVAIR Clause 5252.219-9501.

Note: The successful Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan goals will be incorporated into the resultant Task Order upon award; the successful Offeror’s FTSS IV Basic Contract will be modified, on a semi-annual basis, to update the subcontracting plan with the latest cumulative goals.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to award a task or delivery order to the responsible 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.

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 task or delivery order.

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 evaluation results, and could result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award.

2.0 OFFEROR RESPONSIBILITY TO SUBMIT AN UNAMBIGUOUS, CONVINCING PROPOSAL

It is the 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 proposed approach and price.

An Offeror's proposal must clearly and convincingly reveal that the Offeror has an accurate understanding of the requirements, the associated risks, and otherwise sufficiently addresses all aspects of the solicitation. An Offeror's proposal must clearly and convincingly reveal that the Offeror's proposed approach is viable for the evaluated requirements.

Statements that the Offeror will provide a particular feature or training objective without explaining how the feature or objective will be met are generally inadequate and may adversely impact the Offeror’s evaluation assessment. Also inadequate are the following types of statements, which also may adversely impact the Government’s evaluation of the Offeror:

· unsupported statements that merely paraphrase the requirements;

· unsupported statements that the Offeror allegedly understands the requirements and risks;

· unsupported statements that the Offeror allegedly can or will comply with requirements;

· undefined or explained statements such as “best commercial practices will be used”;

· undefined or explained statements such as “standard procedures will be used”; and

· undefined or explained statements such as “well-known techniques will be employed.”

3.0 FORMAL SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES DO NOT APPLY

This task or 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.

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 excluded from a competitive range, pre-award debriefings, oral or written discussions with all Offerors within a competitive range, and requesting final proposal revisions from all Offerors included within a competitive range are not required. The identification of terminology similar to use in FAR Subpart 15.3, the government’s questions and comments, and the Offeror’s answers and responses do not constitute discussions, clarifications, communications, or exchanges as used in FAR Subpart 15.3.

Under FAR § 16.505, the government is required to afford all 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 Offeror’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 Offeror’s initial proposal must contain the Offeror’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.

After the Government has afforded all Offerors 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 Offeror 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 Offeror 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 a few easily-resolvable informalities, minor irregularities, or negative attributes — the resolution of which do not remove evaluated positive attributes, perceived benefits, or increase the Offeror’s proposed total evaluated price set forth in the PEW;

(3) obtain cost/price supporting information, without obtaining a revised proposal or increase in proposed cost/price, from the offeror 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 those Offerors 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; or

(5) further consider only the Offeror who provided the most advantageous proposal to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the Section M evaluation Factors, despite any negative attributes that may exist with that proposal, where other Offerors do not have a reasonable prospect for award.

4.0 AN OFFEROR’S PROPOSED FEATURES AS PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

Because of a proposed feature’s benefit to the Government, the Government may decide to write specific features of an Offeror’s proposed approach directly into the Statement of Work, Specification, or other section of the task or delivery order at any time prior to award. Exchanges with an Offeror regarding proposed features do not constitute “discussions” as that term is used at FAR Subpart 15.3, because FAR Subpart 15.3 does not apply to this task or delivery order competition conducted under FAR Subpart 16.5.

If the selection official has selected an apparent successful Offeror, and the apparent successful Offeror does not agree to include any of the Offeror’s proposed features directly into the Statement of Work, Specification, or other section of the task or delivery order prior to award, the Government will revise its evaluation record for the selection official, which may or may not change the task or delivery order selection decision, depending upon the proposed feature’s benefit or benefits to which the apparent successful Offeror does not agree.

5.0 Evaluation Factors for Award

The Government will evaluate proposals using the following two Factors:

1. TECHNICAL

Element 1: Management Approach Element 2: Contract Instructor (CI) Recruitment, Staffing, and Retention Approach

2. PRICE

Technical is significantly more important than Price. Elements within the Technical Factor are not weighted or rated sub-factors.

Because Technical is significantly more important than the amount of the price, the Selection Official is permitted to select an Offeror that has proposed a higher price, within any stated budget in the RFP, if the superiority of that Offeror’s proposal is worth the price premium. Thus, the Selection Official will perform a tradeoff between Offerors’ evaluated prices and their evaluated Technical Factor.

As required by FAR § 16.505, the task or delivery order Selection Official will document his or her basis for award. Because debriefings shall not include point-by-point comparisons, nor shall they reveal any information prohibited from disclosure by FAR § 24.202 or exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) — but so that unsuccessful Offerors might have some idea of where they stood in the evaluation compared to the successful Offeror — the Government will assign one of the Factor ratings below. However, ratings are merely guides to intelligent decision making. The basis for award will be made considering the totality of the evaluation and the relative order of importance as provided above.

DEFINITIONS AND RATINGS

The Government will assign one of the Technical ratings and one of the Risk ratings below to the Offeror’s Technical Factor based upon the Government’s subjective assessment of each Offeror’s proposal.

TECHNICAL RATING

RISK RATING

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL FACTOR

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Technical Proposal to determine the Offeror’s understanding of, and ability to meet, the solicitation’s requirements. In doing so, the Government will assess the Offeror’s responses to each of the elements below as to what degree the Offeror’s approach would be adequate to meet PWS requirements. The Government will also assess whether there are any benefits or risks inherent in the Offeror’s approach. Positive and / or Negative attribute(s) may be assigned.

1.1 MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposed approach to manage the DARTS/AAAT CIS program. In doing so, the Government will assess the Offeror’s response to:

1.1.1 Addendum B, 4.5.1

Staffing Site Manager (SM) and Alternate Site Manager (ASM) positions and how the Offeror proposes to foster or enhance its SM’s ability to manage contract performance and ensure open communication between Government and Contractor at the sites.

1.1.2 Addendum B, Part 3

Identification, discussion, and mitigation strategies or corrective actions for the three most critical program risks or issues to providing successful performance at Contractor Support Date (CSD).

1.1.3 Addendum B, Parts 4 & 6

Identification, discussion, and mitigation strategies or corrective actions for the three most critical program risks or issues to providing sustained program performance (after CSD).

1.1.4 Addendum B, 4.8

The elements of the Offeror’s quality management approach as to how those elements would identify, prevent and correct deficiencies in the quality of service performed prior to it becoming unacceptable. The Offeror’s use of performance risks and issues identified in paragraph 1.1.3 to illustrate the effectiveness of its approach is required.

1.2 CONTRACT INSTRUCTOR (CI) RECRUITMENT, STAFFING, AND RETENTION APPROACH

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposed approach to recruit, staff, and retain qualified CIs at CSD and throughout performance. This evaluation will include the Offeror’s completed Attachment L-2 CIS Staffing Chart. In doing so, the Government will assess the Offeror’s response to:

1.2.1 Addendum B, Part 3, and Appendices BA & BB

Recruit and staff CIs during mobilization in order to meet instructional requirements at CSD. The Government will assess whether the L-2 appears consistent with the narrative discussion.

1.2.2 Addendum B, Part 4, and Appendices BA & BB

Calculated hours in an individual CI’s work-year that are available for primary and additional duties. Strategy to support 100% Instruction Factor (IF). The Government will assess whether the L-2 appears consistent with the narrative discussion.

1.2.3 Addendum B, Part 4, and Appendices BA & BB

Long-term CI retention and recruitment (i.e. how it proposes to retain and recruit qualified CIs at each site).

2.0 PRICE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price Volume for its proposed total evaluated price; price reasonableness; whether the Offeror’s proposed CLIN prices are balanced; and Administrative Completeness (whether the Offeror completed the information requested in Section L).

Total Evaluated Price: The total evaluated price (TEP) will be the sum of the extended prices for Mobilization, the base, and option CLINs/Tasks as shown in the PEW (Attachment L-3). The extended price for a CLIN or Task is the unit price multiplied by the unit quantity. The TEP includes the option available to the Government under FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. Specifically, the evaluated price of this six-month period will be calculated by dividing the final option period to establish an estimated monthly amount. The monthly amount will then be multiplied by six to establish the estimated cost for the six-month option to extend services. The evaluation will not bind the Government to purchase any of the option CLINs.

Price Reasonableness: Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. It is expected that this task or 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 Offeror may be requested to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR § 15.403-4.

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. 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.

No Price Realism Analysis: The RFP does not request price support information to enable the Government to conduct a price realism analysis, and the Government will not conduct a price realism analysis as part of its evaluation of Offerors.

Administrative Completeness:

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf