N6134021R0032U0001 FY22 CC RFP Amendment mod 070221.docx

N6134021R0032

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 BLOCK 14

The reason for this solicitation amendment is to:

A. Answer Industry Questions

• Answers can be found as the new Attachment L-10

B. Section I

• Replaced FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Deviation 2018-O0018) -Alt II (AUG 2018) with FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan Alt II (NOV 2020)

• Update added DFARS 252.219-7004

C. Section J

• Update Section J attachments to include:

D. Section L

• Minor administrative changes/corrections throughout.

• Update Part B, Specific Instructions, to reflect the exception that Price Information should be in the Offeror Summary Table L.B.1.1.a.

• Update L.B.2.1.a to reflect the exception that Price Information should be in the Offeror Summary Table L.B.1.1.a.

• Update L.B.3.1 regarding the SBPCD.

• Update L.B.3.2 to remove the reference to the NAVAIR clause 5252.219-9501.

• Added (Atch L-10) to answer Industry Questions

• Added FAR Provision 52.222-24

E. Section M

• Update M.B.1.3.b, Performance Confidence Assessment Rating to clarify weighing of CPAQ information as it relates to information provided by a competing offeror.

• Update M.B.3 to remove the reference to the NAVAIR clause 5252.219-9501.

• Update the Small Business Evaluation Ratings Table in M.C.2 to remove the reference to the NAVAIR clause 5252.219-9501.

F. Statement of Work (SOW)

• Update 1.4 Content Conversion Process Flows

• Removed 1.4.2

• Update 3.2.1 Classified Processing and Access to Classified Systems

• Update 3.3.3 Software Integrity Testing and Certification

• Added Atch (1)_APPENDIX M Sailor 2025 RRL CC Blend Process dated 16 June 2021.

G. DD254

• Updated.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

The following have been deleted:

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been added by reference:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

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 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, “offeror” is defined as the prime contractor with its CAGE code identified in Block 15A on Standard Form (SF) 33, Solicitation offer and Award.

2.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT

Proposals submitted must be formatted using a Times New Roman 12 point 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. If the offeror uses graphs to convey information, the graphs must show enough detail to easily discern the information described. Graphs and tables shall be presented in no smaller than a 10 point font. Graphic resolution, including such data as tables or charts, should be consistent with the purpose of the data presented. Text utilized in charts, figures and graphics should also be no smaller than a 10 point font and may use a font type selected by the offeror.

The offeror will provide electronic files fully compatible with Microsoft Office 2016 and for information not supported by MS Office products, with the latest Adobe Acrobat reader.

All electronic files submitted shall follow the following naming convention:

For Volume 1 Past Performance proposal electronic files: Vol_1_XXX For Volume 2 Price proposal electronic files: Vol_2_XXX For Volume 3 Small Business proposal electronic files: Vol_3_XXX The XXX represents the appropriate title the offeror can identify. For example:

Vol_1_CPARS N6134021C0032 Vol_1_SubK ABCCorp Supporting Docs Vol_2_Attachment L-5 CLIN Pricing Naming files in the format above will allow the Government to store electronic files for each volume accordingly.

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 original electronic copies as specified in the table below. The table below supersedes the copies requested in Block 9 of the Standard Form (SF) 33.

Volume Number

Each volume shall contain the following information:

-Cover and title page -Title of proposal and proposal number as applicable -Offeror’s name, address, and POC -RFP number -Proposal volume -Table of Contents (The table of contents must provide sufficient detail to enable easy location of important elements)

The following table lists the attachments provided to the offeror within Section L.

4.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION:

Method of delivery shall be through the use of https://safe.apps.mil coordinated with the point of contact listed below. The initial Proposal shall not be submitted by facsimile or electronically via email.

(Electronic Copies) Virginia Marquez Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division 12211 Science Drive, Orlando, FL 32826-3266 Email: Virginia.Maul@navy.mil

Note: SAFE restricts the maximum file submission at 8 GB. Firefox, Chrome and Edge are recommended. Internet Explorer is not recommended. Please note that Internet Explorer limits uploads to 2GB. In the Comments box put the following information: Offeror name, Solicitation number, POC, Backup POC. When files are encrypted for submission, send an email with the “passphrase” to the PCO and the Contract Specialist as listed on the https://beta.sam.gov website.

Creating a Drop-off

1. For “outside or unauthenticated users” In order for an outside user to create a drop-off, they must receive a drop-off request from the PCO or the CS. If interested in submitting a response to the Solicitation, the Offeror must contact the PCO and CS to notify them no later than 10 working days in advance of the proposal submission date. When the PCO or the CS generates a drop-off request for you, you will receive an email with a link to submit your drop-off. This link is good for a one-time submission; ensure that the submission is sent to both the PCO and the CS.

2. For “CAC Authenticated users” Create a “drop-off” with the PCO and the CS as the recipients.

Offerors are hereby notified that the Government will not reimburse for any costs incurred for proposal preparation.

Late Proposals: Offerors are advised that the time identified on Block 9 of the Standard Form (SF) 33 applies. Proposal delivery is defined as having occurred based on the DoD Safe’s email notification time stamp to the Contract Specialist, Virginia Marquez (virginia.maul@navy.mil). If multiple drop offs occur, any drop off after the time identified on Block 9 of the SF 33 is considered Late. Offerors are strongly encouraged to deliver as early as possible to avoid any risk of late submission.

5.0 RESERVED

6.0 CLASSIFIED DATA

All proposals must be UNCLASSIFIED.

7.0 SOLICITATION CHANGES

For notice of any changes and additional information provided by the Government for the solicitation, please go to https://beta.sam.gov. Search the database for the solicitation number N6134021R0032.

8.0 SOLICITATION QUESTIONS/COMMENTS

Questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted in writing using the Solicitation Questions and Answer Form, Attachment L-1. It is requested that each question/comment reference the applicable document, paragraph and page number. All questions must be submitted no later than 18 June 2021. Questions/comments shall be emailed to Virginia.Maul@navy.mil. Questions, if answered, will be provided to all potential offerors via amendment to the solicitation as an additional Section L attachment; therefore, do not include proprietary information in your questions.

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/comments to the Government early in the proposal preparation cycle.

PART B SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

With the exception of the Offeror Summary Table (L.B.1.1.a) below, cost or pricing information shall only appear in the Price volume.

VOLUME 1: PAST PERFORMANCE

1.1 Past Performance Overview

a) Offeror Summary Table: The offeror shall complete the table below. The offeror shall include all subcontractors and JV team members who will be involved with the performance of the contract. If a JV teaming or subcontracting arrangement is proposed, identify the work share, distribution elements, and ratios that each contractor will perform using the table below. Also provide a definition of the legal relationship between the entities if it is other than a Prime/subcontractor relationship.

Contractor Name

20%

The table above shall include the dollar value proposed under the Contractor’s name. Adding up the dollar values identified in this table shall equal the total proposed price. The percentages identified by the offeror and subcontractors shall add up to 100%.

Within the “Brief Work Description and/or Program Responsibility” block, offerors shall also include the applicable paragraph numbers as they relate to the relevant SOW paragraphs that will be evaluated for Relevancy in Past Performance: Instructional Media Design Package (SOW 3.5.1), IMI Media Types (SOW 3.5.2), Performance Support and Structured On-the-Job Training Media Types (SOW 3.5.3), Complex Media Types (SOW 3.5.4), Train the Trainer (SOW 3.5.7) and Course Pilot (SOW 3.5.8). If a principal subcontractor’s proposed role does not fit within one of these SOW paragraphs, please state that fact.

1.2 Past Performance Submission Information

a) The offeror shall include no more than six (6) Past Performance Contract References (government or commercial) for the Government’s evaluation consisting of the offeror’s and principal subcontractor’(s) relevant past performance. Up to four (4) of the six (6) references may be provided for principal subcontractors, with a maximum of two (2) references provided for a single principal subcontractor. A “principal subcontractor” for purposes of the past performance evaluation factor is defined as a subcontractor, joint venture owner (joint venturer), partnership owner (partner), corporate parent, division, subsidiary, affiliate or vendor that is demonstrably proposed to provide at least 15% of the total proposed price.

b) The offeror shall NOT submit past performance contract references that include classified supporting documentation. All proposals must be UNCLASSIFIED as outlined in Section L.A.6.0.

The government is evaluating past performance of the offeror (i.e., entity identified in Block 15A of Standard Form 33) and any principal subcontractor proposed to perform at least 15% of the proposed price. An offeror will not receive past performance credit for a proposed principal subcontractor unless the offeror’s proposal demonstrates how the resources of that principal subcontractor – its workforce, management, facilities or other resources – will in fact be provided to perform at least 15% of the proposed price. Merely stating that the offeror has access to the resources of a principal subcontractor is insufficient. The government will not evaluate the past performance of any entity other than the prime and principal subcontractor. Past performance contract references where supplies and services were sold or transferred between corporate divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of a contractor will not be considered unless the interorganizational transfer is identified in the form of a written agreement between the corporate divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates -- such as a subcontract, purchase agreement, modification incorporating a novation agreement, job order, or similar type written agreement – with the prime or principal subcontractor's CAGE code, DUNS number, or corporate name and address on the cover page of the written agreement. Absent a written agreement, a signed statement from a corporate officer of the entity that holds the Past Performance Contract Reference must be provided outlining the work that was performed by the separate corporate division, subsidiary, or affiliate. Past performance contract references that the contractor performed as part of an interorganizational transfer will be evaluated in the same manner as if the contractor performed in a subcontractor role. In such instances, the written agreement or signed statement from a corporate officer between the corporate divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates must specify the exact requirements the contractor is responsible for executing as part of the prime contract (utilizing prime contract supporting documentation as defined in this solicitation) in order for the government to be able to evaluate the relevance of the effort performed.

c) Any submitted past performance contract reference must contain performance within five (5) years of the initial RFP release date specified in Block 5 of Standard Form 33 of the RFP.

d) The offeror should provide written consent from its principal subcontractors that will allow the Government to coordinate any of those entities’ past performance issues with the offeror. If the offeror does not submit such written consent, then the Government will address any past performance issues directly with the principal subcontractor and the offeror will forfeit the opportunity to participate in any related discussions. Consequently, for any principal subcontractors that do not provide such written consent, provide a point of contact name, address, phone number and email address with whom the Government may coordinate past performance issues.

e) The offeror has the burden of providing thorough and complete past performance contract information of the kind set forth below in paragraph L.B.1.3. It is incumbent upon the offeror to identify the relevant requirements within submitted past performance contract references. The government has no duty to search for additional data to cure problems the government finds in the information provided by the offeror.

f) TOs or DOs awarded under Multiple Award Contracts (MACs) (or commercial equivalents) 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.

g) For a single-award indefinite delivery past performance contract, offerors may propose the entire basic contract as a past performance contract reference, or may propose a specific TO or DO as a past performance contract reference. If an offeror proposes an entire single-award indefinite delivery contract as a past performance contract reference, the offeror must provide the past performance information below for at least one, but up to five (5) of the most relevant DOs/TOs issued under that single-award indefinite delivery contract, and those orders will count as one past performance contract reference.

h) TOs or DOs awarded under Basic Ordering Agreements (BOAs) or Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs) (or commercial equivalents) will be considered standalone “contracts” for purposes of past performance evaluation. Thus, offerors may not propose an entire BOA or BPA as a past performance contract reference.

i) Provide the information identified below in a Microsoft (MS) Word Table for each of the up to six(6) references identified:

1 Relevant. The past performance contract reference dollar amount relevant to the scope requirement of the instant solicitation.

2 The CAGE code, DUNS number, and/or the corporate name and address on the contract, subcontract, or interorganizational transfer effort.

3 The offeror shall ensure to validate and provide the Past Performance Contract Reference current point of contact person.

1.3 Relevancy Information of the Past Performance Contract References For each past performance contract reference, provide the “Relevancy Information of the Past Performance Contract Reference Worksheet,” Attachment L-4. The paragraphs cited in Attachment L-4 must be pinpoint citations to the lowest level paragraph that contains the exact scope the offeror believes to be similar to the solicitation requirements. Do not provide high-level, broad citations. Moreover, offer must highlight (in the supporting documents it provides) the exact content in those cited paragraph that it believes is similar to the solicitation requirements.

Supporting documentation- Offerors shall provide one copy of the contract, subcontract, or interorganizational transfer written agreement and its requirements documents (such as Statement of Work, Performance Work Statement, Specifications, Statement of Objectives, and/or Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs)). For subcontract or inter-organizational transfer efforts, the subcontract SOW or equivalent document shall be provided. If the prime or subcontractor performed as a subcontractor on the reference, a copy of the subcontractor agreement between the prime and the subcontractor is required to demonstrate the agreement between the two parties and the division of work. Do not submit invoices, DD250s, or any other document that is not an attachment to the past performance contract reference. The copies of the past performance contract reference shall be provided in fully searchable files (MS Word or .pdf) as required in Section L. Offerors are required to cite specific paragraphs and contract CLIN(s) from their provided documentation in the corresponding Attachment L-4 worksheet. If offerors cite specific references on Military Handbooks or other governing documents that outline courseware development processes, those documents must be referenced in a SOW, PWS, or SPEC to be considered as part of the supporting documentation for use in the evaluation. Documentation such as solicitations, requests for proposals, unsigned contract documentation (e.g. modifications, contract cover pages), partial paragraphs from statements of work or specifications, and redacted Section B CLIN pricing does not provide the government with adequate information to make a relevancy determination. Do not redact pricing information from supporting documentation.

1.4 Demonstrated Performance Information of the Past Performance Contract References

a) For each past performance contract reference, the offeror shall provide available CPARS or CPAQs that address the following demonstrated past performance areas:

Quality of Product or Service. The prime or principal subcontractor’s past performance in the delivery of quality supplies and services, which includes meeting technical requirements.

Schedule. The prime or principal subcontractor’s past performance in meeting schedule requirements, to include on-time or late deliveries, modifications of original schedules.

Program Management and Subcontract Management. The prime or principal subcontractor’s past performance in managing the contracted effort, to include program management, subcontract management, and cooperation with the customer.

b) Do not submit self-described assertions of demonstrated past performance. For the CPARS and CPAQs provided, however, explain the reasons for any past performance problems, including schedule slips, and cost or price increases from time of award. Describe the status of the problem. If the problem was resolved, 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.

c) The offeror shall forward one (1) copy of the Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire (CPAQ), Attachment L-3, to the past performance contract reference customer’s Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO), Program Manager who is the Assessing Official ─ via email and carbon copy (cc:) to the Ms. Virginia Marquez, Contract Specialist, via email at Virginia.Maul@navy.mil ─ for the following past performance contract references: Past performance contract references that do not have CPARS Reports, or past performance contract references where the most recent CPARS Report completed by the Assessing Official is dated more than 12 months prior to the RFP’s release date and is not the final CPARS Report. Furthermore, if the offeror or principal subcontractor submits a past performance contract reference where the offeror or principal subcontractor performed as a subcontractor, the offeror or principal subcontractor shall instead forward one (1) copy of the CPAQ, Attachment L-3, to the past performance contract reference Prime contractor program manager. A past performance contract’s CPARS completed on a prime contractor will not be considered for the offeror or principal subcontractor performing as a subcontractor.

d) The offeror shall forward all CPAQs within 14 calendar days from the initial RFP release date, with a copy forwarded to the Contract Specialist. The offeror shall include instructions to send completed questionnaires within two weeks of the customer’s receipt of the questionnaire to Ms. Virginia Marquez, Contract Specialist, via email at Virginia.Maul@navy.mil, and carbon copy to ricardo.l.elias@navy.mil. The offeror shall NOT complete the CPAQ, but submit to the point of contacts identified above for completion; and then those individuals are to return it to Ms. Virginia Marquez directly via email. The offeror shall make sure that its government and prime contractor program manager, if applicable, Past Performance POCs are current to avoid any delays in the completion and submission of the CPAQs to the Contract Specialist.

e) 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 two (2) years of the initial RFP release date. For each instance, the offeror shall provide the contract and the related SOW.

2.0 VOLUME 2: PRICE PROPOSAL

2.1 Price Content:

a) With the exception of the Offer Summary Table (L.B.1.1.a), all price information shall be contained in only the price proposal. Offerors are responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate their price proposal.

b) Offerors shall submit a completed Attachment L-5 in accordance with the directions in Attachment L-5. Estimated quantities for each FFP CLIN for IFIT – IMI 1, IFIT – IMI 2, IFIT – IMI 3, IFIT – Complex Media, SDIT – IMI 1, SDIT – IMI 2, and SDIT – IMI 3 are included in Attachment L-5 as provided in Section B. These estimates represent the Government’s best estimate of the expected requirements throughout the course of the IDIQ ordering period. For evaluation purposes, offerors shall propose the estimated prices of CLINs 1017, 1018, and 1019, in Attachment L-5. Each DO will have its Production Support – Train the Trainer and Production Support – Pilot negotiated after DO award as required and outlined in Section H, Ordering Procedures. The Price for CLIN 1019 is an estimate based on the Government’s understanding of the travel necessary to perform the requirements of the impending contract.

2.2 Certified Cost or Pricing Data:

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 and may conduct negotiations with the offeror, pursuant to FAR Part 15.403-4, in order to ensure a reasonable and realistic price. 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. The offeror shall acknowledge the requirement to provide additional cost or pricing information and certify the data prior to award if/when requested by the Government.

2.3 Administrative Content

a) The offeror shall complete the following administrative requirements:

i. The offeror shall provide a completed and signed SF33 cover page for the basic solicitation and each amendment to the RFP shall be acknowledged and accepted.

ii. Signed Representations, Certifications and Acknowledgements required in Section K or System for Award Management (www.sam.gov) reference.

iii. Offeror Representatives and Information: The offeror shall provide a summary sheet comprised of the information listed below:

(1) PRIME CONTRACTOR

(i) Business Name;

(ii) Address;

(iii) Principal point of contact for this solicitation (Name, title, phone number, email);

(iv) Secondary point of contact for this solicitation (Name, title, phone number, email);

(v) Individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government and contractually bind the offeror (Name, title, phone number, email);

(vi) Establishment Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

(vii) TIN of Parent Corporation (if applicable);

(viii) DUNS;

(ix) CAGE code;

(x) Business size for this effort (large or small); and

(xi) Percentage of work proposed to perform on solicitation effort.

(2) ALL OTHER ENTITIES (one for each additional entity, even it is not considered a principal subcontractor member, as defined in the Past Performance section above)

(i) Business Name;

(ii) Address;

(iii) DCMA point of contact and telephone number, if applicable;

(iv) DCAA point of contact and telephone number, if applicable;

(v) DUNS; and

(vi) CAGE code

iv. The offeror shall include a statement that the proposal shall remain valid for a period of at least 270 days from the designated closing date indicated for receipt of proposals in the RFP.

v. The offeror shall confirm that they are registered under NAICS code 541330 on www.SAM.gov.

vi. Exceptions and Deviations All exceptions and deviations that the offeror takes from the provisions of the solicitation and its applicable documents shall be included in this section.

An exception is where an offeror states it will not comply with a solicitation requirement, usually involving contract terms and conditions. A deviation is where an offeror states it will not comply with a solicitation requirement but proposes an alternative to meet the intent of the requirement, usually involving a SOW requirement.

Offerors are highly encouraged to submit questions regarding any areas of the solicitation as early as possible if they may lead to an exception or deviation so it can be resolved. If the offeror takes any exceptions or deviations to the provisions of the solicitation and its applicable documents, the offeror shall provide the following statement: “All exceptions and deviations taken from the solicitation terms, conditions or requirements, including any applicable documents, are included in this section.” If the offeror does not take any such exceptions or deviations, then the offeror shall provide the following statement: “No exceptions or deviations are taken to the terms and conditions or any requirement of the solicitation.”

vii. Contractor Accounting Systems (Prime Only): Pursuant to FAR 16.301-3(a)(3) and DFARS clause 252.242-7006, “Accounting System Administration,” the contractor’s accounting system must be adequate during the entire period of contract performance for determining costs applicable to the cost-reimbursable CLINs under this contract.

As a result, offerors shall provide evidence from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), other federal civilian audit agency, or a private accounting firm that, as of the proposal due date, the offeror’s accounting system has been audited and has been determined adequate and suitable for administration of a cost-reimbursable contract. An offeror that is an unpopulated JV entity shall provide evidence of an adequate cost accounting system for the managing venturer in accordance with FAR 52.219-30. Offerors that submit evidence from a private accounting firm must submit a Standard Form 1408, completed and signed by the private accounting firm that performed the audit. This shall include full contact information for the private accounting firm so that this can be verified.

viii. Notice of Potential Organizational Conflict of Interest: All offerors are required to affirm whether an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) or Potential Organizational Conflict of Interest (POCI) exists among themselves or any proposed subcontractors. If the prime offeror or a subcontractor has an identified OCI or POCI, the offeror shall submit an OCI Mitigation Plan of the contractor who has the identified OCI or POCI in accordance with the following Provision:

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST INSTRUCTIONS (NAVAIR) (APR 2021)

a) This Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) provision is in accordance with FAR 9.507-1. As such, Offerors are hereby notified of the existence of an OCI and the potential for an OCI.

b) The potential OCI is related to unequal access to information associated with NAWCTSD’s WAVE 4A Knowledge Capture and Analysis (Contract No. N6134019C0013), WAVE 4B Knowledge Capture and Analysis (Contract No. N6134019C0016), and Ready Relevant Learning (RRL) Gap Front End Analysis (FEA) and Military Characteristic Document (MCD) analysis (Contract No. N6134019D1038) efforts.

c) The potential OCI is with contractors (Prime or subcontractors) whose employees provide or previously provided the Navy rating analysis and Gap FEA and MCD analysis for the three contracts above because these contractors may have unequal access to information that could provide an unfair competitive advantage in proposal development in response to this solicitation.

d) The potential OCI could exist at any tier of an Offeror or affiliate of the Offeror, to include any team member serving in any capacity such as subcontractor, consultant, employee of the Offeror, or joint venture involving the Offeror.

e) Any Offeror or affiliate of the Offeror, which includes any team member serving in any capacity such as subcontractor, consultant, employee of the Offeror, or joint venture involving the Offeror, that is a contractor supporting one or more of the three contracts referenced above shall submit an adequate OCI mitigation plan that if approved by the Contracting Officer, will be incorporated into the offeror’s proposal and that, as a minimum, incorporates the following:

(1) A description of the contractor’s internal controls and planned actions to avoid any potential organizational conflict of interest.

(2) All data accessed or generated by an Offeror or affiliate of the Offeror, which includes any team member serving in any capacity such as subcontractor, consultant, employee of the Offeror, or joint venture involving the Offeror through any of the three referenced contracts in this provision shall be firewalled and segregated from all other Offeror personnel and data systems, so as to mitigate any potential competitive advantage arising from the Offeror’s prior access to data.

(3) All Offerors and affiliates of the Offeror, which includes any team member serving in any capacity such as subcontractor, consultant, employee of the Offeror, or joint venture involving the Offeror employees supporting or who have supported the referenced contracts in this provision shall have had in place and shall continue to be working under Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), and, if applicable, pre-existing approved, OCI mitigation plans, that adequately protect sensitive Government or proprietary information from unauthorized distribution.

(4) All Offerors and affiliates of the Offeror, which includes any team member serving in any capacity such as subcontractor, consultant, employee of the Offeror, or joint venture involving the Offeror employees who have supported the referenced contracts at any time dating back to 3 years prior to release of the RRL FY 22 Content Conversion (CC) solicitation (N6134021R0032) shall be firewalled and segregated from personnel and organizational elements of the Offeror associated with the RRL FY 22 CC acquisition through the date of contract award. These employees, regardless of whether they are actively performing in the referenced contracts, shall be specifically prohibited from providing information toward or participating in proposal development activities for the RRL FY 22 CC solicitation.

(5) All Offerors and affiliates of the Offeror, which includes any team member serving in any capacity such as subcontractor, consultant, employee of the Offeror, or joint venture involving the Offeror employees who are actively supporting the referenced contracts shall be firewalled and segregated from personnel and organizational elements of the Offeror associated with the RRL FY 22 CC acquisition at all times.

(6) An explanation of remedies available to the Government that may be associated with any breach of its OCI mitigation plan relative to this contract. The remedies the offeror describes will be in addition to the remedies afforded to the Government by other provisions of the contract, or statute, or regulation.

(7) A signed statement by an authorized offeror representative that none of the personnel who supported any of the three referenced contracts at any time dating back to 3 years prior to release of the RRL FY 22 CC solicitation (N6134021R0032) provided any information toward or participated in proposal development activities for the Price factor for the RRL FY 21 CC solicitation.

f) The submitted OCI mitigation plan is subject to approval by the Contracting Officer prior to contract award and is considered a material term of the proposal. The government may communicate with any Offeror at any time during the evaluation process concerning its OCI mitigation plan, and such communications shall not be considered “discussions” as that term is used at FAR subpart 15.3.

g) Notwithstanding the potential OCI to which Offerors have been notified above, Offerors are required to disclose any other potential OCI and submit an OCI mitigation plan, if appropriate, as it relates to that potential OCI.

h) The existing OCIs impact at least four potential entities who are identified below by contract number, company name, cage code, and ratings the OCIs directly impact;

i. N6134019C0013, Yulista Tactical Services, LLC (Yulista), 6WYV5, Navy Ratings include

1. Fire Controlman (FC)

2. Interior Communications Electrician (IC)

3. Aviation Ordnanceman (AO)

4. Aviation Support Equipment Technician (AS)

ii. N6134019C0013, A.Harold and Associates LLC (AHA), 3EWS7, Navy Ratings include

1. Fire Controlman (FC)

2. Interior Communications Electrician (IC)

3. Aviation Ordnanceman (AO)

4. Aviation Support Equipment Technician (AS)

iii. N6134019C0016, Katmai Integrated Solutions, LLC (Katmai), 69K56, Navy Ratings include

1. Fire Controlman (AEGIS)(FCA)

iv. N6134019D1038, Potawatomi TPS JV2, LLC, 8AQV0, includes all Navy Ratings

The OCI applies only to the Navy Ratings identified above in order to ensure that conflicting roles that might have biased a contractor’s judgement are prevented.

i) Any Offeror who includes Yulista, AHA, or Katmai as a potential team member must provide a letter signed by someone who can bind the Offeror that they understand the OCI restrictions of this provision and will only subcontract efforts related to Navy ratings that the contractors did not support in their analysis contracts with the Government that are outlined above. This certified letter shall be part of the OCI mitigation plan and will become an attachment to the resultant contract.

j) As a result of the existing OCIs discussed in this provision, Yulista, AHA, Katmai, and Potawatomi are restricted from submitting a proposal as a prime offeror. A proposal submitted as a prime offeror will be considered deficient and will not be considered for award.

k) The government reserves the right to waive the requirements of FAR 9.5 in accordance with FAR 9.503.

l) Nothing in this solicitation provision relieves contractors supporting the referenced contracts from complying with the existing ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST requirements within their contract(s).

3.0 VOLUME 3: SMALL BUSINESS

3.1 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT DOCUMENT

Each offeror (Large and Small Businesses) shall complete the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) provided as Attachment L-6 and submit it as a part of VOLUME 3 SMALL BUSINESS. The SBPCD shall identify a minimum small business participation goal of 25% of the total evaluated price and list the planned small business participants. If proposing less than 25% Small Business participation for this contract, the offeror shall provide a detailed explanation clearly supporting the rationale for doing so.

The SBPCD shall provide goals for each of the following categories: Small Business (SB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB), Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), and HUBZone Small Business (HUBZone). The SBPCD shall also identify one or more small business participants under item 3 of the SBPCD. Each small business participant identified under item 3 of the SBPCD must have an active registration in SAM or provide a written certification of its small business or socio-economic status applicable under the size standard assigned to this procurement (if the SB is the Prime) or under the size standard assigned by the Prime (if the SB is the subcontractor).

Small business offerors may fully or partially meet this requirement using work they will perform themselves.

3.2 SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (LARGE BUSINESSES ONLY)

The Large Business offeror shall provide its Individual Subcontracting Plan conforming to the requirements of FAR 19.7 and DFARS 219.7. If the offeror is a participant in the DoD Comprehensive Subcontracting Test Program specified in DFARS 219.7, the offeror shall describe how Small Business participation on this contract will contribute to its overall Comprehensive Subcontracting goals. The Subcontracting Plan of the successful offeror will be reviewed and approved by the PCO prior to contract award. See FAR 19.702(a) (1) Statutory Requirements, regarding failure of the apparent successful offeror to negotiate and submit a Subcontracting Plan acceptable to the Contracting Officer. The successful offeror’s approved Subcontracting Plan will be incorporated into the resultant contract.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals will be evaluated using the following factors:

Factor 1: PAST PERFORMANCE

Factor 2: PRICE

Factor 3: SMALL BUSINESS

The Past Performance Factor is significantly more important than the Price factor. The Small Business Factor will be evaluated on an “acceptable/unacceptable” basis. The Small Business Factor must be acceptable to be eligible for award but is not a component of the trade off.

Because the Past Performance Factor is significantly more important than the Price Factor, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) is permitted to select an offeror that has proposed a higher price if the Past Performance proposal of the offeror is worth the price premium. Thus, for offerors with an acceptable Small Business Factor Rating, the SSA will perform a tradeoff between offerors’ evaluated price and their evaluated assessments under the Past Performance Factor.

Because a successful offeror’s evaluated past performance is 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 one of the Past Performance Factor ratings located in Part C-3, below. The SSA, however, will not base his or her decision on the ratings because ratings are merely guides to intelligent decision making.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1. PAST PERFORMANCE

a) Under the Past Performance Factor, the Government will evaluate recent performance to determine how well an offeror has performed work similar to the work required by the solicitation. After evaluating the offeror’s past performance information, a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned. The Performance Confidence Assessment Rating reflects 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. 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.

b) The Government will evaluate a maximum of six (6) most relevant government or commercial past performance contract references of the prime and principal subcontractors’ recent and relevant past performance.

c) There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: Relevancy and Demonstrated Past Performance. An initial consideration in determining the relevancy of a past performance record involves Recency.

d) If an offeror proposes the resources of a principal subcontractor – which is defined as a subcontractor, joint venture owner (joint venturer), partnership owner (partner), corporate parent, division, subsidiary, affiliate or vendor that is demonstrably proposed to provide at least 15% of the total contract price — the offeror will not receive past performance credit of the proposed principal subcontractor unless the offeror’s proposal demonstrates how the resources of the principal subcontractor – its workforce, management, facilities or other resources – will in fact be provided to perform at least 15% of the proposed total contract price. Merely stating that the offeror has access to the resources of a principal subcontractor is insufficient.

1.1 Relevancy

The first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate how relevant the Past Performance being evaluated is to the requirements of this solicitation. The government will evaluate each past performance contract reference to determine how recent and relevant it is to this solicitation’s effort. Any past performance contract reference deemed to be Not Relevant will receive no further consideration, with no opportunity to submit a replacement, even if the government requests revised proposals. The Government will use the following aspects to determine relevancy for this evaluation:

a) Recency is expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. A recency determination will be made for each offeror’s past performance submission. A determination of Recent will be assigned to offerors’ submissions which contain performance within five (5) years of the initial RFP issuance date. For single -award indefinite delivery past performance contract references, only the task or delivery orders submitted for consideration will be evaluated for recency and not the base contract. The entire contract period of performance will be considered, even if only a portion of performance falls within the five year period, with the understanding that more recent performance is generally more relevant than less recent performance. It is possible that an older past performance contract reference with performance that barely crosses into the five-year period (see above) could be determined Not Relevant, depending upon the work that was actually delivered or provided during that time period. For example, for a trainer delivery solicitation, a past performance contract that performed trainer deliveries could be determined Not Relevant if the only thing being provided or delivered during the period of time that crosses the five-year mark is maintenance services.

A determination of Not Recent will be assigned to offerors’ submissions which do not contain performance within five (5) years of the RFP issuance date, or for which the Past Performance record’s award date cannot be determined, and the submission will not be evaluated or rated.