.N61340-20-R-0005 Amendment 0001.docx

N6134020R0005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001

1. This Amendment is for the Surface Fire Fighter and Damage Control Contractor Operation and Maintenance Services (Surf FF/DC COMS), Request for Proposal N6134020R0005, and is identified as 0001.

2. This amendment has posted attachments as revised, in accordance with Att (L-14) Consolidated Solicitation Question_19 Dec 2019 Amend 0001, the following documents have been posted:

a. Att (1) Surface FF-DC COMS PWS_2 Dec 2019_TrkChgs

b. Att (1A) Appendix A_Surf FF-DC_Mayport_4 Dec 2019_TrkChgs

c. Att (1B) Appendix B_Surf FF-DC_Norfolk_4 Dec 2019_TrkChgs

d. Att (1C) Appendix C_Surf FF-DC_San Diego_4 Dec 2019_TrkChgs

e. Att (1E) Appendix E_Surf FF-DC_Pearl Harbor_4 Dec 2019_TrkChgs

f. Att (1G) Appendix G_Surf FF-DC_SWOSU Great Lakes_4 Dec 2019_TrkChgs Track changes have been left on to show what has been revised.

3. This modification has renumbered the CBA attachments beginning with ATCH 10G – ATCH 10L.

4. Section J Attachments_12.05.19 has also been updated.

5. Attachment 9A excel has been updated to correct unit amounts to align with aforementioned Section L & M instruction clarifications: Att (9A) Surf FF-DC Sect B_Price Evaluation Worksht_11 Dec 2019 Amend 1.

6. Section L of this solicitation has been updated to clarify Price Evaluation Worksheet (PEW) instructions: Att (L-9B) Surf FF-DC Manpower Projection Workbook_20 Dec 2019.

7. Section M of this solicitation has been updated to clarify Price Evaluation Worksheet instructions.

8. Please see this amendment attachments, and Att (L-14) Consolidated Solicitation Questions answered, for those changes. All other terms and conditions remain the same.

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Document Type Description Date

Attachment 1A Appendix A - Mayport 12/04/19

Attachment 1B Appendix B – Norfolk 12/04/19

Attachment 1C Appendix C – San Diego 12/04/19

Attachment 1D Appendix D – Newport 10/01/19

Attachment 1E Appendix E – Pearl Harbor 12/04/19

Attachment 1F Appendix F – RTC Great Lakes 10/01/19

Attachment 1G Appendix G – SWOSU Great Lakes 12/04/19

Attachment 2 CDRL Addressee List 10/23/19

Attachment 3 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan 07/02/19

Attachment 5A Premium Time Request Form 07/02/19

Attachment 5B Premium Time Hours Log 10/15/19

Attachment 6 SCA Price Adjustment Request Form 10/10/19

Attachment 7 DOL Wage Determination Adjustment 10/10/19 Baseline

Attachment 8 Over and Above Work Request Form 07/02/19

Attachment 9A Price Breakout Worksheet (Sect B) 10/07/19

Attachment L-9B Manpower Projection Workbook 10/07/19

Attachment 10A DOL WD 2015-4539 (Rev.-9) Mayport 10/10/2019

Attachment 10D DOL WD 2015-4089 (Rev.-11) Newport 10/10/2019

Attachment 10E DOL WD 2015-5689 (Rev.-9) Pearl Harbor 10/10/2019

Attachment 10F DOL WD 2015-4935 (Rev.-11) Great Lakes 10/10/2019

Attachment 10G Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)- Mayport 10/01/15

Attachment 10H CBA- Norfolk 10/01/15

Attachment 10I CBA- San Diego 10/01/15

Attachment 10J CBA- Newport 10/01/15

Attachment 10K CBA- Pearl Harbor 10/01/15

Attachment 10L CBA- Great Lakes 10/01/15

Attachment 11 Excess Cost Request Form 07/02/19

Attachment L-12 Consumables (All Sites) 12/04/19

Attachment L-13A Mayport Inventories 07/02/19

Attachment L-13B Norfolk Inventories 07/02/19

Attachment L-13C San Diego Inventories 07/02/19

Attachment L-13D Newport Inventories 07/02/19

Attachment L- 13E Pearl Harbor Inventories 07/02/19

Attachment L-13F RTC Great Lakes Inventories 07/02/19

Attachment L-13G SWOSU Great Lakes Inventories 07/02/19

Attachment 14 Solicitation Question/Response Form 10/10/19

Attachment L-15 Maint Hours and Throughput Feb 18 - Aug 19 10/07/19

Attachment L-16A Mayport Maint Sep 18 - Aug 19 10/07/19

Attachment L-16B Norfolk Maint Sep 18 - Aug 19 10/07/19

Attachment L-16C San Diego Maint Sep 18 - Aug 19 10/07/19

Attachment L-16D Newport Maint Sep 18 - Aug 19 10/07/19

Attachment L-16E Pearl Harbor Maint Sep 18 - Aug 19 10/07/19

Attachment L-16F RTC Great Lakes Maint Sep 18 - Aug 19 10/07/19

Attachment L-16G SWOSU Great Lakes Maint Sep 18 - Aug 19 10/07/19

Attachment L-17 Past Performance Information Form (PPIF) MAR 2017

Attachment L-18 Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire MAY 2016

(CPAQ)

Exhibit A1 CDRL A001 CFSR 10/23/19

Exhibit A2 CDRL A002 Conference Minutes 10/23/19

Exhibit A3 CDRL A003 Mob/Contractor Perf Rpt 10/23/19

Exhibit A4 CDRL A004 Monthly Performance Rpt 10/23/19

Exhibit A4-1 Sample Rpt for Annex to CDRL A004 10/23/19

Exhibit A5 CDRL A005 Inventory Report 10/23/19

Exhibit A6 CDRL A006 Quality System Plan 10/23/19

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

INSTRUCTIONS AND NOTICES

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 clearly and convincingly demonstrates that the offeror has an accurate understanding of the requirements, the associated risks, and otherwise sufficiently addresses all aspects of the solicitation. The offeror must clearly and convincingly reveal that the offeror’s proposed approach is viable for the evaluated 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, objective, or outcome without explaining how the offeror proposes to meet that feature, objective, or outcome 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.”

The Offeror must include any data that illustrates the adequacy of the various assumptions, approaches, and solutions to problems. Failure to address a specific factor or subfactor clearly may be considered a deficiency. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentation materials beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal is neither necessary nor desired.

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 to the Price Volume, no cost or pricing information should appear in any other volume.

Throughout these instructions, a “principal subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor who provides at least 20% of the proposed total price/cost (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee), for the contract or provides one or more Key Personnel. “JV Team member” is defined as one of the entities that make up a joint venture (JV) formed for the purpose of responding to this solicitation.

2.0 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 only for Attachments 9A, Surf FF-DC Sect B_Price Evaluation Worksheet and L-9B, Surf FF-DC Manpower Projection Workbook. 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 and Tables shall be presented in no smaller than a 10 point font Graphic resolution, including such date as tables or charts, should be consistent with the purpose of the data presented.

The offeror must present proposal information in a manner that facilitates a one-to-one comparison between the information presented and this Proposal Instruction. Proposal information must be structured such that its paragraph number/letter is identical to the Proposal Instructions paragraph number to which it is responding, although the offeror may add lower tier subparagraphs. The proposal information instructions are structured by paragraph numbers where first, second, third, and fourth parts correspond to the volume, book, section, and element, etc., in offeror's proposal.

3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND 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 (CD) copies as specified in the table below. The separate CD copy of the Technical Volume and the separate CD copy of the Past Performance Volume must be fully compatible with Microsoft Office Professional 2016. For information not supported by Microsoft Office products, the offeror must provide it in Portable Document Format (PDF) files compatible with the latest Adobe Acrobat reader on each CD. The separate CD copy of the Price/Cost Volume must be provided in Microsoft Office Professional 2016 Excel format, with spreadsheets unprotected, or fully compatible. Each separate CD 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 “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 35 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

* The twenty five-page limit does not include any exhibits such as Commitment Letters, Teaming Agreements, subcontractor agreements or the required Staffing Charts.

** No price information, (e.g., dollar values and/or hourly rates) shall be included in Volume 1 or Volume 2. (Technical and Past Performance).

4.0 SOLICITATION QUESTIONS

The Contract Specialist is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Offerors may submit questions requesting clarification of solicitation requirements by emailing the Contract Specialist at mary.j.abbott@navy.mil. It is requested that all questions be received within 5 calendar days of the date this solicitation is issued. It is requested that questions regarding this solicitation be submitted in writing utilizing the Solicitation Question/Response form (Attachment L-14). Each question shall reference the applicable document, paragraph, and page. Questions containing proprietary information shall not be submitted as all Government responses to questions will be provided to all potential Offerors via amendment to the solicitation.

The Government reserves the right not to respond to any questions received concerning this solicitation after the question receipt date above. Accordingly, Offerors are encouraged to carefully review all solicitation requirements and submit questions to the Government early in the proposal cycle. All amendments will be posted to the Official U.S. Governments website, beta.SAM, at https://beta.sam.gov. It is not anticipated that the closing date for receipt of offers will be extended. All questions must be submitted no later than 2:00 PM Eastern Time Zone, 5 calendar days after the RFP release date specified in Block 9 of Standard Form 33.

5.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Clearly mark all packages with the solicitation number. 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.

Offeror shall submit proposals via United States Postal Service or through a commercial carrier using the address provided below. Offeror shall not submit proposals by facsimile or electronically via email. Hand carried proposals may be delivered to the address below, attention to Specialist.

Orlando, FL 32826 Phone: 407-380-4721 Solicitation Number: N61340-20-R-0005

Solicitation Number: N61340-20-R-0005

IMPORTANT NOTICE: All packages entering the Consolidated Mail Facility building at the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division are being scanned. If the contents of the box/package contain electronic components or media, or otherwise should not be scanned because of potential damage to the contents, the sender/vendor shall mark the box/package with a “DO NOT SCAN” sticker.

Submission of telegraphic, facsimile, or electronic commerce offers is not authorized for this solicitation. Proposals shall be submitted either by mail or hand carried as specified above. If the proposal or final proposal revision (if and when the final proposal revision is requested) is hand carried, the Offeror shall notify the cognizant Contract Specialist at least two (2) business days prior to the closing date/time specified in paragraph L-A 5.0 or as specified in the amendment/letter requesting final proposal revisions. Offerors will be required to supply the Contract Specialist (or alternate POC listed in paragraph L-A 5.0) with the name, citizenship, and telephone number of all the individuals that will be present to hand deliver the proposals in order to prepare the necessary Visitor Request(s) prior to arrival. NAWCTSD is a secure facility and all visitors will be stopped by security personnel upon entrance. Only authorized visitors will be permitted to enter. Upon admittance, Offerors are required to report to the lobby of the DeFlorez Building and contact the cognizant Contract Specialist to accept the proposal submission (a telephone is available in the lobby to place calls within the building). Please note center security personnel are not authorized to accept proposals.

Late Proposals:

(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.

(1) Any proposal, modification, or revision received at the Government office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt of offers is “late” and will not be considered unless it is received before award is made, the Contracting Officer determines that accepting the late offer would not unduly delay the acquisition, and—

(i) If it was transmitted through an electronic commerce method authorized by the solicitation, it was received at the initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure not later than 5:00 p.m. one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of proposals; or

(ii) There is acceptable evidence to establish that it was received at the Government installation designated for receipt of offers and was under the Government’s control prior to the time set for receipt of offers; or

(iii) It is the only proposal received.

(a) Mark the title page with the following legend:

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.

6.0 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 including the original/signed documents submitted as part of Volume 3 Price.

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” and “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

7.0 CLASSIFIED DATA

All proposals must be UNCLASSIFIED.

PART B: SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

1.0 FACTOR 1- TECHNICAL

Note: This volume shall not contain any reference to cost or price aspects of the offer.

The Offeror shall provide all information and data required to conduct a thorough and complete technical evaluation. The Offeror shall address the following in the proposal:

i. Element 1- Staffing Approach:

Provide a completed Attachment L-9B (including DOL Labor category, Number, and Title) for staffing resources to meet the requirements of this contract. Requirements can be found within Attachments 1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F, and 1G. Offerors shall follow the instructions within Attachment L-9B when providing their submission of Attachment L-9B.

The Offeror shall provide its rationale regarding its proposed labor mix in Attachment L-9B to include: mix of specific technical skills (i.e., master, journeyman, and apprentice level technicians/personnel) and personnel specializations across site as it relates to maintenance requirements in the PWS.

Note - Awardee is required to meet all contract performance requirements, and if the requirements take more staffing than proposed, the awardee is required to provide additional staffing, at no increase in price, until all contract performance requirements are satisfactorily met.

ii. Element 2- Maintenance Approach:

The Offeror shall identify at least one major risk associated with providing the required support for both: Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) storage and Corrosion Control. For the risks identified, provide potential risk mitigation measures.

iii. Element 3- Management Approach:

The Offeror shall provide their specific approach to recruiting and staffing COMS personnel during the mobilization phase while meeting the trainer availability requirements at Contract Start Date (CSD) to include associated risks identified and proposed risk mitigation measures.

The Offeror shall provide their specific approach to maintain staffing levels throughout the term of the contract to include how its approach mitigates the effect of temporary staffing shortages at sites (e.g., sick, vacation, military call-up).

2.0 FACTOR- PAST PERFORMANCE

Note: This volume shall not contain any reference to the price aspects of the offer.

General Information:

i. The Offeror shall complete the Past Performance Information Form (PPIF), Attachment L-17, for each past performance reference performed within three years of the solicitation release date stated in this RFP (Standard Form 33, Block 5). Additionally, the offeror shall provide one electronic copy of the Statement of Work (SOW)/Performance Work Statement (PWS) for each contract referenced as Annex 1 to the Past Performance Volume. Total PPIFs submitted shall not exceed three (3), if proposing as a Prime Contractor, or, if proposing as a Joint Venture (JV), at least one (but no more than three in total) from for each JV team member. The Government is not evaluating the past performance of proposed subcontractors, or individual partnership owners. As such, these will not be considered.

ii. If applicable, the Offeror shall submit written consent from its JV team member(s) that will allow the Government to coordinate any past performance issues directly with the Offeror. If the Offeror does not submit the written consent, the Government will address any past performance issues directly with the JV Team member and the Offeror will forfeit the opportunity to participate in any related discussions. Consequently, for any JV team member that does not provide the written consent, the Offeror shall provide the name, address, phone number, and email address with whom the Government may address any past performance issues.

iii. The primary source of past performance information will be PPIRS. For quality assessment, if a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) exists for multiple years for the same contract/order, all periods of performance within the recency period specified in this RFP (Standard Form 33, Block 5), for that contract/order, will be used for evaluation. In the event a CPAR does not exist for a past performance reference, the offeror shall submit a Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire (CPAQ), Attachment L-18, to the Program Manager who is the Assessing Official.

iv. To evaluate past performance, the Government may use information other than information provided by the Offeror in its proposal, and may use past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror.

v. Regardless of relevancy, the Offeror shall provide a list of Show Cause Notices, Cure Notices and Terminations for Default received on any contract, task order, or delivery order within the past 3 years.

vi. Task or delivery orders awarded under Multiple-Award Contracts (MACs) will be considered standalone “contracts” for purposes of past performance evaluation. Thus, Offerors may not propose an entire MAC as a past performance contract reference.

vii. For a single-award indefinite delivery past performance contract, Offerors may propose the entire basic contract as a past performance reference, or may propose a specific task or delivery order as a past performance reference. If an Offeror proposes an entire single-award indefinite delivery contract as a past performance reference, however, the Offeror must provide the past performance information below for each and every task or delivery order issued.

Submission Requirements:

All CPAQs shall be forwarded within 14 calendar days from the RFP release date, with a copy forwarded to the Contract Specialist, Ms. Mary Abbott. The Offeror shall include instructions for its customers to send completed CPAQs within two weeks of the customer’s receipt of the questionnaire to Ms. Mary Abbott, Contract Specialist, via email at mary.j.abbott@navy.mil. The Offeror is solely responsible for ensuring questionnaires are completed and submitted within the specified timeframe. The Government must receive all CPAQs by the proposal submission date.

2.1 Past Performance Relevancy Information

For relevancy determination, the offeror shall provide a narrative on each Past Performance Information Form (PPIF) in the “Contract Effort Description” area that clearly describes how each contract reference has relevant work effort that matches Past Performance Contract Relevancy Ratings (Section M, Part B, section 2.0, paragraph 2.1) of this solicitation. The offeror shall provide specific SOW/PWS references.

The Offeror has the burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information. It is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of data provided in its proposal with specific PWS/SOW references. The Government has no duty to search for additional data to cure problems the Government finds in the information provided by the Offeror or to determine the relevancy of the data submitted.

Whether submitting a PPIF (Attachment L-17) or a CPAQ (Attachment L-18), the brief description in the “Contract Effort Description” portion of each document shall address the following:

a. Experience in executing maintenance actions in burner control technology and infrastructure not found in mobile trainers (e.g. Complex control systems, gas sensing equipment, burner control technology and infrastructure).

b. Relevant experience with High Risk Structural Fire Fighting Trainers.

c. Demonstrated in-place programs to manage service personnel at multiple locations.

d. Experience with trainers that Simulates water damages in a realistic shipboard environment.

e. Experience in support of components that makeup the training systems (e.g., the fuel distribution system consists of a storage tank, pumps, associated piping, Nitrogen, Propane system gauges, SCBA Compressor, bottles, and Fill Stations.

2.2 Demonstrated Past Performance

The Government will use CPARS and CPAQs to document demonstrated past performance. The Government does not want to receive, and will not use for evaluation, an Offeror’s self-described assertions of demonstrated past performance. For the CPARS and CPAQs provided, however, explain the reasons for any past performance problems, as well as schedule slips and cost or price increases from the schedule and cost or price at time of award.

For any past performance problem identified in the CPARS or CPAQs, describe the status of the problem. If the problem is likely to happen again, describe the impact that the Offeror’s implemented improvement effort had on resolving the problem so that it would not happen again. Describe the resolution used to correct the past performance problem and, if applicable, how the Offeror proposes to use that resolution for this solicitation’s effort.

3.0 FACTOR 3- PRICE

The following is a list of Section L and J Attachments that the offeror shall utilize to provide information for this volume:

(1) Attachment 9A, Price Evaluation Worksheet (Sect B);

(2) Attachment 7 (Sec J), Wage Determinations & CBAs

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-9A, Price Evaluation Worksheet (PEW) which represents Section B pricing. Offerors are instructed to ONLY complete yellow-highlighted cells within the attached PEW excel file, as formulas will calculate the overall evaluated price. All prices shall be in whole dollars. No formulas shall be hidden or locked or edited. The offeror shall ensure that prices are entered for all unit prices and supply support amounts specified in the PEW. The unit prices shall include the supply support amounts as applicable (supply support amounts are not separate prices but are included within the unit pricing). The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be the sum of the extended prices for Mobilization, the base, and option CLINs as shown in the PEW with yellow highlighting (Attachment L-9A). The extended price for a CLIN is the unit price multiplied by the unit quantity. The TEP excludes COST CLINs for Consumables as well as TBD CLINs (OAWRs and DOL Adjustments). CDRL CLINS are Not Separately Priced and therefore will also be excluded from the TEP.

This Solicitation, and the resulting Contract, are subject to the Service Contract Act of 1965, as amended, and to FAR 52.222-41. The offeror shall propose in compliance with the current FY20 hourly rates set forth in the Department of Labor Area and Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Wage Determinations (WD), Attachment 10A-10L (Sec J), and shall not include escalation for adjustments for covered employees under the Service Contact Act, even if escalation for FY21 and beyond is included in a CBA or DoL Area Wage Determination for proposed positions not covered by a CBA.

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 as proposed in Attachment L-9A, 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 3 PRICE -

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

The Government expects to select one Offeror whose proposal offers the “best value” to the Government, using the trade-off method. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit(s) in response to the requirement. The Offeror is advised that the lowest priced proposal meeting the solicitation requirements may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional price.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

In accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation, in accordance with the solicitation. All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. Failure to address each of the areas identified in Section L Part B Specific Information in the proposal may impact the resulting evaluation ratings and risk assessment.

For the Technical factor, a Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be assigned. The Technical Rating reflects whether the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements along with an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. For proposals containing no deficiencies, the benefit to the Government associated with assigned strengths will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being thorough or good. The Technical Risk Rating considers the risk associated with the technical proposal in meeting the requirement and is evaluated by the identification of weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses. Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an “Unacceptable” Technical Rating or a “High” Technical Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate recent performance to determine how well an Offeror has performed work similar to the work required by the solicitation. When proposals are received from joint ventures, specifically formed by the Offeror to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual JV team member’s relevant past performance, provided that it is not past performance obtained through its involvement in a previous or different JV arrangement. After evaluating the Offeror’s past performance information, a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating than past performance of lesser relevance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, the Offeror will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” which is considered a “Neutral” rating.

Evaluation Factors for Award:

Proposals shall be evaluated using the factors listed below.

Factor 1: Technical

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

The Technical Factor is more important than the Past Performance Factor. The Technical Factor and Past Performance Factor when combined are significantly more important than the Price Factor. Technical and Past Performance qualities when combined are significantly more important than Price, therefore; the selection official is permitted to select an Offeror that has proposed a higher price if the technical and past performance superiority of that Offeror’s proposal is worth the price premium.

Because a successful Offeror’s evaluated strengths and weaknesses are generally 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 a Technical Factor rating and Technical Risk and Past Performance rating as defined below. The selection official will perform a tradeoff between Offerors’ evaluated prices, past performance and their evaluated Technical Factor strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies.

PART B SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 FACTOR 1- TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Technical proposal to determine to what degree the Offerors’ approaches demonstrate an understanding of the Contractor Operation and Maintenance Services (COMS) requirements and the risks associated with the Surface Fire Fighter and Damage Control (Surf FF-DC) trainers, and the likelihood that the Offeror will meet Surf FF-DC requirements. Specifically, the following will be evaluated:

i. Element 1- Staffing Approach: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Attachment L-9B to include DOL Labor category, Number and Title. Surf FF-DC Manpower Projection Workbook, submission for utilization of an appropriate labor mix that is likely to successfully perform the requirements of this contract. The Government will assess the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed number of personnel and proposed number of hours in its proposed labor categories are realistic for providing continuous and simultaneous operations across multiple geographic locations for this contract.

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s rationale regarding the proposed labor mix inclusive of specific technical skills mix and personnel specializations at each site as it relates to maintenance requirements. The evaluation includes consistency between the proposed Offeror’s Attachment L-9B and the supporting the narrative discussion.

Note: Awardee is required to meet all contract performance requirements, and if the requirements take more staffing than proposed, the awardee is required to provide additional staffing, at no increase in price, until all contract performance requirements are satisfactorily met.

ii. Element 2- Maintenance Approach:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s identification of risks with providing the required HAZMAT storage and Corrosion Control per the PWS. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures for the risks identified.

iii. Element 3- Management Approach:

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s specific approach to recruiting and staffing COMS personnel during the mobilization phase while meeting the trainer availability requirements at CSD to include associated risks identified and proposed risk mitigation measures.

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s approach to maintain staffing levels throughout the term of the contract to include how its approach mitigates the effect of temporary staffing shortages.

For the Technical factor, a separate Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be assigned.

a) Technical Ratings:

The Government will assign Technical Ratings as described in the table below.

Technical Rating. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

TECHNICAL RATING

b) Technical Risk Ratings:

The Government will assign Technical Risk Ratings as described in the table below.

Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

RISK RATING

2.0 FACTOR – PAST PERFORMANCE

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

The first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance being evaluated. Past performance will be considered recent if the contract/order has been performed within three years of the solicitation release date. Past Performance that is not recent will not be considered in the evaluation.

2.1 Recency

The first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance being evaluated. Past performance will be considered recent if the contract/order has been performed within three years of the solicitation release date. Past Performance that is not recent will not be considered in the evaluation.

2.2 Relevancy

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate how relevant the Past Performance being evaluated is to the requirements of this solicitation.

For each past performance contract submitted, the Government will evaluate the past performance contract to determine how relevant it is to this solicitation’s effort. Any past performance contract deemed to be Not Relevant will receive no further consideration, with no opportunity to submit a replacement, even if the Government requests revised proposals.

In determining relevancy, the Government will compare the contract types, total dollar amounts, 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, and the scope (the types of work performed), magnitude (the contract dollar value), complexity (see Section L, Part B 2.1a through 2.1e) of the past performance effort, and the requirement documents to the effort proposed to be performed under this solicitation. 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 one of the following relevancy ratings:

2.3 Demonstrated Past Performance

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the overall quality of the Offeror’s recent relevant, past performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror and JV team members performance and focus its evaluation on the following areas: 1) meeting technical requirements, i.e., the quality of technical performance; 2) meeting schedule requirements, e.g., on time or late delivery; 3) controlling contract cost; 4) managing the contracted effort; 5) the demonstrated systemic improvement actions taken to resolve past problems. A separate quality rating will not be assigned, rather the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of past performance taking into account the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

2.4 Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

After the Government has compiled a full assessment of the offeror’s relevance and demonstrated past performance, the Government will assign a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating to the offeror. The assessment reflects the Government’s level of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the solicited effort based on the offeror’s record of relevant past and present performance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent 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 neutral past performance.

The Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings are set forth in a table below. 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.

The Government will not take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies or key personnel. In addition, in assigning a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating or in the source selection authority’s tradeoff decision:

a. Past performance effort of the prime offeror performed as a subcontractor will generally not be considered as significant as past performance effort of the prime offeror performed as the prime;

b. Past performance questionnaire information received from non-Government entities (i.e contractor) when the prime offeror performed as a subcontractor will not be given as much weight as past performance questionnaires received from Government entities; and

c. Performance under Government…