N6134020R0011 Surface Curriculum Amendment 02.docx

N6134020R0011

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 08-Jan-2020 11:00 AM to 27-Jan-2020 11:00 AM.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 1201

The pricing detail quantity has increased by 100.00 from 120.00 to 220.00.

The following have been modified:

B.1 Delivery Orders The contractor shall provide CLINs X001 (Training Systems Analysis and Design) and X002 (Curriculum Format Conversion) on a negotiated Firm Fixed Price basis. Each delivery order for these products shall be proposed by the contractor when requested by the Government, and negotiated with the Government utilizing the labor rates set forth in Attachment 2 Resource Allocation Matrix.

The contractor shall provide CLIN X501 (Travel) and X502 (Other Direct Costs) on a negotiated Firm Fixed Price basis. Each delivery order that includes travel and other direct costs shall be proposed by the contractor when requested by the Government, and negotiated utilizing fixed factor rates set forth in Attachment 2 Resource Allocation Matrix. No other rates will apply.

B.2 ID/IQ Ceiling The total dollar ceiling for all delivery orders issued under this contract is $49.45M. Initial contract line item (CLIN) value allocations represent projected award/types based upon historical and planned programmed requirements of this contract award. The Government reserves the right to reallocate value across CLINs as necessary, throughout the ordering period, to accommodate requirements received.

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 1201 has been changed from:

POP 20-MAR-2020 TO

19-MAR-2021

FOB: Destination

To:

POP 20-MAR-2020 TO

19-MAR-2021

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 2201 has been changed from:

POP 20-MAR-2021 TO

19-MAR-2022

POP 20-MAR-2021 TO

19-MAR-2022

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 3201 has been changed from:

POP 20-MAR-2022 TO

19-MAR-2023

POP 20-MAR-2022 TO

19-MAR-2023

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 4201 has been changed from:

POP 20-MAR-2023 TO

19-MAR-2024

POP 20-MAR-2023 TO

19-MAR-2024

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 5201 has been changed from:

POP 20-MAR-2024 TO

19-MAR-2025

POP 20-MAR-2024 TO

19-MAR-2025

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been deleted:

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

SECTION J

EXHIBIT B: CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS LIST (CDRL)

EXHIBIT F: CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS LIST (CDRL)

Basic ID/IQ Contract Attachments

Solicitation Attachments (These are needed for solicitation purposes only and will not be incorporated into the final contract)

Attachment L-1 Delivery Order 01 Terms & Conditions (Revised Amdnement 02)

Attachment L-5 CPAQ Form (Revised Amendment 01) Attachment L-6 CLIN Pricing Form (Revised Amendment 02) Attachment L-7 GFI Request Distribution Agreement

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

L-1 CONTENT OF PROPOSALS (NOV 2019)

PART A: GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.0 GENERAL

The Offeror must respond to all requirements of the solicitation and not alter or rearrange the solicitation. The Offeror is advised that the Government may incorporate any portions of the Offeror’s proposal into the resulting contract.

In presenting material in the proposal, the Offeror is advised that quality of information is more important than quantity. Clarity, brevity, and logical organization shall be emphasized during proposal preparation. Statements that the prospective Offeror understands, can comply with, or will comply with, the specifications, and paraphrasing the requirements or parts thereof without supporting information are considered inadequate by the Government, and may result in assessing weaknesses and/or deficiencies.

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 sub-factor 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.

The Government advises the Offeror that taking exception or deviating from any term or condition of the RFP may result in the assessment of a deficiency to the proposal.

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. “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.

This solicitation is a Total Women Owned Small Business Set Aside. As such, the awardee of the resulting ID/IQ is required to comply with FAR 52.219-30 Class Deviation 2019-O0003 dated 12/3/18 “Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole Source Award to, Women-Owned Small Business Concerns Eligible Under the Women-Owned Small Business Program.” The concern must satisfy the requirement to perform at least 50% (as defined in the class deviation) of the cost of manufacturing the supplies, not including the cost of materials on the resulting Delivery Order.

2.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT

Written proposals must be formatted using a Times New Roman 12 pt. Normal font (no reduction permitted), single-spaced with 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. Drawings may be provided separately and may be 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 pt. font and should contain a grid, which allows values to be read directly from the graph. Graphic resolution, including such data as tables or charts, should be consistent with the purpose of the data presented.

The Offeror will provide one complete copy of the proposal to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) as electronic files fully compatible with Microsoft 2016 and for information not supported by MS Office products, with the latest Adobe Acrobat reader on a CD-ROM. The Offeror will ensure that the Price Volume is provided on a separate CD-ROM. Each CD-ROM is to be labeled for content and the Offeror’s name. If a discrepancy exists between the original paper copy of the proposal and the disk copy, the paper copy will take precedence. Data stored on the media shall be unlocked.

3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES

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 Volume/paragraph number matches the Proposal Instructions Volume/paragraph number provided in section “Part B Specific Instructions” to which it is responding, although the Offeror may add lower tier subparagraphs. The Offeror must provide reasons it will not provide information for a particular paragraph. The proposal information instructions are structured by paragraph numbers where first, second, third, and fourth parts correspond to the volume, section, and element, etc., in the Offeror’s proposal.

Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted as one original and additional copies as specified in the table below. The table below supersedes the copies requested in Block 9 of the Standard Form (SF) 33. All volumes of the original proposal shall be delivered to the address provided in Section 4.0 prior to the closing date/time stated in this solicitation. Page limitations for each volume, if any, are also specified in the table below; title and table of contents pages do not count towards the page limit. Any pages submitted exceeding the page limit shall be disregarded and NOT evaluated.

2 Paper Copies 1 CD-ROM Original

2 Paper Copies 1 CD-ROM Original

1 Paper Copies 1 CD-ROM Original

* Page limitation does not include front matter such as title page, table of contents, list of figures, etc., glossary (if used), acronym list (if used). When foldout pages are used, they must not exceed 11 x 17 inches and will be counted as 1 page. 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. Drawings are included within the page count.

Technical, Past Performance and Price volumes shall be submitted in separate binders.

Each volume shall contain the following information:

The Offeror shall submit a Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) for the Technical Volume, similar to the example below, to help ensure that all solicitation requirements are addressed and to facilitate the evaluators’ review of the Offeror’s proposal. The CRM should be a single integrated matrix and cross-reference the proposal volumes and paragraphs to specific RFP requirements, as well as other parts of the proposal that contain relevant information. The Offeror’s CRM may be identical to the example below or revised such as to add columns to indicate the page number on which information may be found, identify where other relevant information in the proposal is located, or provide other comments. The CRM does not count against any of the proposal page limitations.

EXAMPLE OF A CROSS REFERENCE MATRIX (CRM)

Volume 1 Technical Example: Para 3.1 Note: This column shall address all paragraphs in Sections xx and xy of the SOW/PWS.

Volume 1 Technical

Volume 1 Technical

4.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Clearly mark all packages with the solicitation number. The submission date for all Volumes shall be no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 of the SF 33 of the RFP. It is requested that Volume 2 Past Performance information be submitted by 1300 Eastern Time 20 December 2019.

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.

Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division Code: AIR-2.5.3.6.3 (Attention: Mark Johnson) 12211 Science Dr.

Orlando, FL 32826-3224 Solicitation Number: N6134020R0011

Hand Carried Proposals: Hand carried proposals must be delivered to the address above, attention Mark Johnson and marked “Solicitation Number: N6134020R0011.” If a proposal or amendment is hand carried, the Offeror must submit a written visit request no later than two (2) business days prior to delivery of the proposal. Without the visit request, the Offeror may not get beyond the installation security gate to deliver its proposal. Police Officers/Guards are not authorized to accept proposals. A visit request may be obtained by contacting Mark Johnson, Contract Specialist, at: mark.johnson13@navy.mil. Upon arrival to NAWCTSD, please contact Mark Johnson at 407-381-8687. In the event that Mark Johnson is not available, please contact the alternate point of contact, Reagan Gill, at 407-380-4145.

Late Proposals: See FAR provision 52.215-1.

5.0 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.”

5.1 Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data: Offerors that include in their proposals data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the government except for evaluation purposes, shall—

(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 CLASSIFIED DATA

All proposals shall be UNCLASSIFIED.

7.0 SOLICITATION CHANGES

For notice of any changes and additional information provided by the Government for the solicitation, please go to www.beta.sam.gov.

8.0 ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT FURNISHED INFORMATION (GFI):

GFI listed in the RFP, Attachment DO1-02 GFI List, will be made available via https://safe.apps.mil/ to qualified Offerors (i.e. WOSB IAW FAR 52.219-30) upon request. Offerors should make their request for GFI no later than 5 working days after FINAL RFP release. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure they obtain all available GFI in time to complete their proposal before the submission deadline. Offerors shall complete the GFI Distribution Agreement Form, Attachment L-7 and provide a completed copy to Mark Johnson at, mark.johnson13@navy.mil to coordinate receipt of the GFI. GFI shall not be provided without a completed GFI Distribution Form. All personnel provided access to GFI shall be U.S. citizens.

9.0 SOLICITATION QUESTIONS

Questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted in writing using Attachment L-2 Question & 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 1300 Eastern Time on 10 December 2019, via email to Mark Johnson, Contract Specialist, at mark.johnson13@navy.mil and Reagan Gill, PCO, at Reagan.gill@navy.mil.

The Government reserves the right not to respond to any questions concerning this solicitation received after the time frame specified above. Accordingly, Offerors are encouraged to carefully review all solicitation requirements and submit questions to the Government early in the proposal preparation cycle.

PART B SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

The technical volume shall contain no pricing information.

1.0 VOLUME 1: TECHNICAL

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:

1.1 Curriculum Development of Delivery Order 0001 LCU CHENG

1.1.1 Given existing course design documentation provided under Delivery Order 0001 as GFI, the Offeror shall describe their overarching approach for selecting and implementing instructional strategies into blended learning, incorporating Computer Assisted Instruction ((CAI), as defined in DO 0001, SOW 170021 Paragraph 3.2.1) with Instructor-Led Training (ILT). The Offeror shall describe how it will develop media to support the design.

1.1.2 The Offeror shall identify and discuss the top three (3) critical risks associated with developing Delivery Order 0001 LCU CHENG courseware based on existing design documentation, and integrating CAI into that design. For each identified risk, the Offeror shall discuss its mitigation strategy.

1.2 Training Requirements Analysis of Delivery Order 0001 Advanced Welding Course

1.2.1 The Offeror shall describe its overarching approach for the production and delivery of a Training Situation Document related to the Advanced Welding Course as outlined in DO 0001 SOW170021 paragraph 1.1 (b), and 3.2.2 and how the Offeror will apply its approach to developing CDRL F001, Training Situation Document/CDRL F002 Business Case Analysis.

1.2.2 The Offeror shall identify and discuss the top three (3) critical risks associated with the overarching approach for conducting the training requirements analysis for Delivery Order 0001 Advanced Welding Course. For each risk identified, the Offeror shall discuss its mitigation strategy.

1.3 Program Management of ID/IQ

1.3.1 The Offeror shall describe its overarching approach to manage potential surges in workload, including management of multiple DOs at one time. Offerors shall include its overarching approach to ensuring quality assurance during surges in workload.

2.0 VOLUME 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Past Performance volume shall contain no pricing information.

Sources of past performance evaluation information include information provided by the Offeror in response to the solicitation, information obtained from questionnaires, and any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information Systems (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

The Offeror shall complete the Past Performance Information Form (PPIF), Attachment L-4, for each past performance reference performed within three years of the initial solicitation release date. The Offeror shall submit no more than three Past Performance Information Forms as the Prime Contractor, no more than two forms for each principal subcontractor, and/or no more than two forms for each JV team member. For contract references that contain delivery/task orders, additionally provide the work description(s) for each specific delivery/task order deemed relevant by the Offeror to this solicitation’s requirements. For contract references where the Offeror performed as a subcontractor, the Offeror shall clearly identify the applicable portion of the contract requirements that they performed. The Offeror shall submit written consent from its principal subcontractor(s) and 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 principal subcontractor or JV Team member and the Offeror will forfeit the opportunity to participate in any related discussions. Consequently, for any principal subcontractor and 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.

The Offeror shall provide a narrative on each Past Performance Information form (PPIF) in the “Description of the Effort/ Clarification of SOW/PWS References” area that clearly describes how each contract reference has relevant work effort that matches the relevancy definitions specified in Section M of the solicitation. Do not, however, provide any self-ratings of past performance. Within the narrative, Offerors should identify the relevant portions (sections, paragraphs, and page numbers) of the referenced contract’s SOW/PWS to clearly identify how past efforts performed are similar to the Relevancy Definitions as defined in section M. The referenced sections only need to be identified and the full text does not need to be broken out separately from the complete SOW/PWS. Additionally, the Offeror shall provide one electronic copy of the Statement of Work/Performance Work Statement for each contract reference as Annex 1 to this Past Performance Volume.

The primary source of past performance information will be PPIRS. 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 above, 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-5, to the Program Manager who is the Assessing Official. The Offeror shall include instructions for the Program Manager to send completed questionnaires within two weeks of its receipt via e-mail to Mark Johnson, Contract Specialist, at mark.johnson13@navy.mil thereby allowing the customer approximately two weeks to complete their response. All CPAQs should be received by the Government concurrently with the Offeror’s proposal submission.

The Government has no duty to search for data to cure the problems it finds in the information provided by the Offeror. The Offeror has the burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information.

VOLUME 3: PRICE PROPOSAL

3.1 Ground Rules and Assumptions

(a) As this is a competitive acquisition with adequate price competition anticipated, certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-1 is not required. However, in the event that adequate price competition does not exist after receipt of proposals, the Government reserves the right to request additional cost or pricing data as necessary from both the Offeror and subcontractors. Further, the Offeror may be required to provide a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data prior to award, pursuant to FAR 15.406-2.

(b) The Offeror shall provide sufficient information to support its price as well as an explanation of all ground rules and assumptions that affect the price estimates.

(c) Total dollar ceiling for all delivery orders issued under the Training Analysis and Curriculum Modernization ID/IQ contract is $49,450,000. Initial contract line item (CLIN) value allocations represent projected award/types based upon historical and programmed requirements as of contract award. The Government reserves the right to reallocate value across the CLINs as necessary, throughout the ordering period, to accommodate requirements received.

3.2 Price Information

(a) The Offeror shall provide a completed copy of Attachment L-6 CLIN Pricing Form, ensuring to follow the instructions and filling in the portions highlighted in yellow in each tab. Offerors are encouraged to round to the whole dollar, but in any event shall not have any decimals beyond two digits. At the time of contract award, the government will take the Offeror submitted information from Attachment L-6 CLIN Pricing Form and populate section B of the Base ID/IQ and Delivery Order 0001. The Offeror is not required to submit a completed Section B.

(b) The Offeror shall provide a completed Attachment 2, Resource Allocation Matrix. All prices in the CLIN Pricing Form, Attachment L-6, shall utilize the fully burdened rates provided in the Resource Allocation Matrix, Attachment 2.

(c) The Offeror shall explain any appearance of unbalanced pricing in the proposal. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly understated or overstated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Any apparent imbalances in pricing, high or low, or any other anomalies, should be fully explained.

(d) All price and price supporting information shall be contained in the price proposal. No price or pricing information shall be included in any other volume, including cover letters. Offerors are responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate their price proposal.

3.3 Administrative

This Volume shall contain the Contract Compliance information as follows:

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

(b) Signed Representations, Certifications, and Acknowledgements and/or System for Award Management (SAM) and Section K, certifications, representations and other statements in full text.

(c) A statement that the proposal shall remain valid for a period of at least 180 days from the date of proposal submission.

(d) Offeror Representatives: Provide the name, title, phone number and e-mail address of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to the company's proposal and who can obligate the company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

(e) The mailing address, telephone, 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, and email address for the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) at the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).

(f) The TIN, DUNS and CAGE code.

(g) Assumptions, Conditions, Exceptions Deviations, or Waivers: Assumptions, conditions, exceptions, deviations, and requests for waivers may cause proposals to be considered deficient and, thus, not awardable. If there are no assumptions, conditions, exceptions, deviations, or waivers, the Offeror shall provide a statement stating such. If the Offeror proposes an assumption, condition, exception, deviation, or waiver to a term or condition of the solicitation, the Offeror shall provide a detailed description for each as applicable. The Offeror shall identify the portion of the solicitation and the Offeror’s proposal that are affected.

The following have been deleted:

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (NOV 2019)

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.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

For the Technical factor, a combined Technical/Risk rating will be assigned. This method 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 to determine the combined Technical/Risk rating. The benefit to the Government associated with assessed strengths along with technical risk will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional. 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/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. 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.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals will be evaluated using the factors listed below.

Factor 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH (Volume 1)

Factor 2: PAST PERFORMANCE (Volume 2)

Factor 3: PRICE (Volume 3)

Technical is more important than Past Performance. Elements within the Technical Factor are not weighted or rated sub factors. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price; therefore, the source selection authority 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 Combined Technical/Risk Factor and Past Performance rating as defined below. The source selection authority, however, will not base his or her decision on those ratings because ratings are merely guides to intelligent decision making. The source selection authority is required to perform, and will perform, a tradeoff between offerors’ evaluated prices and their evaluated underlying merits in the Technical and Past Performance Factors, such as, strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the Offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the Offeror's approach. The evaluation will also include an assessment of the following:

1.1 Curriculum Development of Delivery Order 0001 LCU CHENG

1.1.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overarching approach for selecting and implementing instructional strategies into blended learning, incorporating CAI with ILT as defined in DO 0001 SOW 170021, Paragraph 3.2.1. The Government will also assess how the proposed developed media will support the stated objectives of the instructional design.

1.1.2 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s top three (3) critical risks associated with developing courseware based on existing design documentation, integrating CAI into that design, and the proposed risk mitigation strategy of each.

1.2 Training Requirements Analysis of Delivery Order 0001 Advanced Welding Course

1.2.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overarching approach for the production and delivery of a Training Situation Document for the Advanced Welding Course as outlined in DO 001 SOW 170021 paragraph 1.1 (b), and 3.2.2. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for how the Offeror will apply their approach to developing CDRL F001, Training Situation Document/CDRL F002 Business Case Analysis.

1.2.2 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s top three (3) critical risks associated with the overarching approach for conducting the training requirements analysis for DO 0001 Advanced Welding Course, and the proposed risk mitigation strategy for each.

1.3 Program Management of ID/IQ

1.3.1 The Government will evaluate the Offerors approach to manage potential surges in workload, including management of multiple DOs at one time. The Government will evaluate the Offerors overarching approach to ensuring quality assurance during surges in workload.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and demonstrated performance. 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 initial solicitation release date. Past Performance that is not recent will not be considered in the evaluation.

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. In determining relevancy, the government will assess the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the past performance effort to the effort proposed to be performed under this ID/IQ solicitation. The government will only consider past performance by entities with the same CAGE Code and DUNS as the Prime Contractor and principal subcontractor(s) or JV team members.

To assess scope and complexity the government will rely primarily on the page and paragraph numbers the Offeror cites in its past performance contracts’ Statement of Work, Performance Work Statement, Specification, or contract. While the government may review other portions of the Offeror’s past performance contract, the Offeror should not rely on the government to identify relevant past performance within other components of its proposal. Any past performance record found not relevant will receive no further consideration, with no opportunity to submit a replacement, even if the government requests revised proposals.

The third performance evaluation is to evaluate the overall demonstrated performance of the Offeror’s recent relevant, past performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror, principal subcontractors, and JV team member’s 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 on cost type contracts; 4) managing the contracted effort; 5) utilization of small business; 6) regulatory compliance, and 7) the demonstrated systemic improvement actions taken to resolve past problems. A separate quality rating will not be assigned for each reference contract submitted, 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.

The Past Performance evaluation culminates in a performance confidence assessment rating. The Government will assign one of the performance confidence assessment ratings to the Offeror’s Past Performance Factor based upon the Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based upon the Offeror’s recent and relevant past and present performance record. CPARS will only be evaluated at the filing level stipulated in the proposed effort (i.e. filed at basic IDIQ or order level). An IDIQ will not be evaluated at both the basic and order level, if an order under the IDIQ is submitted for evaluation.

In assigning a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating or in the source selection authority’s tradeoff decision:

e. Offerors who demonstrate past performance in both IMI and ILT may receive a higher Confidence Assessment Rating than Offerors who demonstrate past performance in only IMI or ILT.

3.0 PRICE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price Volume for its proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP); price reasonableness; whether the Offeror’s proposal contains balanced pricing; and whether the Offeror completed the information requested in Section L. The Government may use various price analysis techniques such as comparison of the Offeror’s proposed price to competing Offerors’ prices in response to this solicitation, comparison to the Government’s independent price estimate, and/or other techniques to perform the price analysis.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP): Because the Delivery Order 0001 does not sufficiently represent the work to be performed under the ID/IQ, the TEP shall be the sum of the CLINs in the Basic IDIQ contract and Delivery Order as shown in Attachment L-6, CLIN Pricing Form. The TEP will auto calculate when the CLIN Pricing Form is completed, and the TEP as shown in the cell labeled “Total Evaluated Price” will be utilized in the tradeoff decision. Due to this method, the total evaluated price may exceed the IDIQ ceiling price; however, the ceiling of the ID/IQ will remain at $49.45M. In reviewing the TEP, the Government will ensure that the rates utilized in Attachment L-6 CLIN Pricing Form for CLINs X001, X002, X501, and X502 are the same rates submitted in Attachment 2 Resource Allocation Matrix.

Price Reasonableness: Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. It is expected that this contract 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.

Balanced 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.

Completeness: The Government will verify the items requested in Section L, Part B, Paragraph 3.3 Administrative have been submitted.

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.

PART C: EVALUATION RATING AND ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

The definitions below will be used by the Government when assessing solicitation compliance and the expected results of the Offeror’s proposed approach.

1.0 EVALUATION RATING AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

The definitions below will be used by the Government when assessing solicitation compliance and the expected results of the Offeror’s proposed approach. The appropriate adjectival rating will be assigned to each factor and subfactor, as required. The Government will utilize a combined technical/risk rating for this effort.

2.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings: The combined technical/risk assignments are provided in the table below.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

3.0 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

Scope: A contract reference that pertains to:

a. Producing Level 2 Instructor Led Training (ILT) that includes text based lessons with audio and 3D graphics that was developed in support of Navy (Subsurface, Air and Surface) platforms and/or

b. Producing Level 2 Interactive Multi-media Instruction (IMI) that was developed in support of Navy (Subsurface, Air and Surface) platforms.

· Complexity: A contract that involved delivery of at least one Level 2 ILT course or one Level 2 IMI course, that included analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. The referenced courseware must have been developed using the Naval Education and Training Command (NETC) standard courseware development process, to include the use of the Content Planning Module (CPM) and Learning Object Module (LO Module).

· Magnitude: The magnitude threshold is a contract or order valued at $1M or more.

· Scope: Producing ILT or IMI courseware at any level of interactivity (e.g. Interactive Multimedia Instruction Level 1) that was developed in support of a U.S. Government Agency (Military or Civilian).

· Complexity: A contract reference that involved delivery of at least one IMI or ILT courseware product at any level of interactivity (e.g. Interactive Multimedia Instruction Level 1) that included analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. The referenced courseware must have been developed using commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) products or Government provided development toolsets.

· Magnitude: The magnitude threshold is a contract or order valued at $500K or more

4.0 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

The Government will employ the Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method described in the table below. 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 unknown or neutral past performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating: Performance Confidence Assessment rating assignments reflect the Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance record.

4.0 OTHER DEFINITIONS

Strengths: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (FAR15.001)

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (FAR 15.001)

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. (FAR 15.001)

Recency: As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Relevancy: As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Risk: As it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract…