N62473-16-R-1002_-_RFP.pdf

NAVFAC SOUTHWEST

PW CONTRACTS CORE - PPV

CODE RAQ10-PPV

1220 PACIFIC HWY

SAN DIEGO CA 92132-5190

UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 700)

11. DELIVERY FOR FOB

RFQ

SEE SCHEDULE

X

DO-C2

14. METHOD OF SOLICITATION

IFB RFP

CODE

SEE ADDENDUM

BLOCK IS MARKED

DESTINATION UNLESS

12. DISCOUNT TERMS

(No Collect Calls)

38.5

13b. RATING

13a. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED ORDER

X

CODE

N62473-16-R-1002 05-Jan-2016

b. TELEPHONE NUMBER

619-532-3065

8. OFFER DUE DATE/LOCAL TIME

12:00 PM 08 Feb 2016

5. SOLICITATION NUMBER 6. SOLICITATION ISSUE DATE

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV 3/2005)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

(TYPE OR PRINT)

(SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER) 31c. DATE SIGNED

ADDENDA ARE

26. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT (For Gov t. Use Only )

22. UNIT 23. UNIT PRICE 24. AMOUNT21. QUANTITY

CODE 10. THIS ACQUISITION IS

UNRESTRICTED

FAX: NAICS:

TEL:

CODE 18a. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BYOFFEROR

SUCH ADDRESS IN OFFER

17b. CHECK IF REMITTANCE IS DIFFERENT AND PUT

BELOW IS CHECKED

TEL.

N62473

SIZE STD:

9. ISSUED BY

FACILITY

CODE

17a.CONTRACTOR/

18b. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN BLOCK 18a. UNLESS BLOCK

15. DELIVER TO CODE N62473 16. ADMINISTERED BY

NAVFAC SOUTHWEST

PATTY A. OLIVAS

PW CONTRACTS CORE - PPV

CODE RAQ10-PPV

1220 PACIFIC HWY

SAN DIEGO CA 92132-5190

TEL: 619-532-3065 FAX: 619-532-1155

7. FOR SOLICITATION

INFORMATION CALL:

a. NAME

PATTY A. OLIVAS

2. CONTRACT NO. 3. AWARD/EFFECTIVE DATE 4. ORDER NUMBER

(TYPE OR PRINT)

30b. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 30c. DATE SIGNED 31b. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

30a. SIGNATURE OF OFFEROR/CONTRACTOR 31a.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

0 27a. SOLICITATION INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-1. 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-3. 52.212-5 ARE ATTACHED.

25. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

1. REQUISITION NUMBER

19. ITEM NO. 20. SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICES

SEE SCHEDULE

532112

TO ISSUING OFFICE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO FURNISH AND DELIVER ALL ITEMS

SET FORTH OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND ON ANY ADDITIONAL SHEETS

SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED HEREIN.

SB

HUBZONE SB

SET ASIDE: % FOR

OFFEROR TO COMPLETE BLOCKS 12, 17, 23, 24, AND 30

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

ARE NOT ATTACHED

27b. CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-5 IS ATTACHED. ADDENDA ARE ARE NOT ATTACHED

TEL: EMAIL:

4 COPIES

(BLOCK 5), INCLUDING ANY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES WHICH ARE

SET FORTH HEREIN, IS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS:

.OFFER DATED YOUR OFFER ON SOLICITATION

28. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN 29. AWARD OF CONTRACT: REFERENCE

X

8(A)

SVC-DISABLED VET-OWNED SB

EMERGING SB

X

32g. E-MAIL OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(CONTINUED)

SEE SCHEDULE

19. ITEM NO. 20. SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICES 21. QUANTITY 22. UNIT 24. AMOUNT

PAGE 2 OF

23. UNIT PRICE

ACCEPTED, AND CONFORMS TO THE CONTRACT, EXCEPT AS NOTED: ______________________________________________________

32a. QUANTITY IN COLUMN 21 HAS BEEN

RECEIVED INSPECTED

32b. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32c. DATE 32d. PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32e. MAILING ADDRESS OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE 32f . TELEPHONE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

37. CHECK NUMBER

FINALPARTIALCOMPLETE

36. PAYMENT35. AMOUNT VERIFIED

CORRECT FOR

34. VOUCHER NUMBER

FINAL

33. SHIP NUMBER

PARTIAL

38. S/R ACCOUNT NUMBER 39. S/R VOUCHER NUMBER 40. PAID BY

41a. I CERTIFY THIS ACCOUNT IS CORRECT AND PROPER FOR PAYMENT

41b. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER 41c. DATE

42a. RECEIVED BY (Print)

42b. RECEIVED AT (Location)

42c. DATE REC'D (YY/MM/DD) 42d. TOTAL CONTAINERS

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV 3/2005) BACK

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

Section SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS

1. INQUIRIES

Inquiries regarding the Request for Proposal (RFP) shall be submitted electronically using the Request for Information (RFI) form provided in Section J of this solicitation. The Point of Contact (POC) for inquiries is Patty Olivas at (619) 532-3065, or e-mail at patty.olivas@navy.mil or via fax at (619) 532-3358. The Government cannot guarantee a response to inquiries received less than 10-days before proposal receipt date.

2. PROPOSAL DUE DATE

Proposal due date information is identified in block 8 on the SF 1449 and/or as amended on the SF 30. Refer to these documents for date and time of proposal submission.

3. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

There is no pre-proposal conference scheduled at this time. A notice will be posted to FebBizOps when the conference is scheduled.

4. SITE VISIT

There is no site visit scheduled at this time.

5. PROPOSAL DELIVERY LOCATION

Proposals shall be delivered to the following address and clearly marked with the RFP number on the outside of the package:

NAVFAC Southwest Attn: Patty Olivas, ACQ10.PO 1220 Pacific Highway, Bldg 127 San Diego, CA 92132-5190

6. PERIOD OF ACCEPTANCE OF OFFERS

The Offeror agrees to hold its offer firm for a period of 90 days from proposal due date.

7. POINTS OF CONTACT

All correspondence concerning this Contract shall be addressed to the following:

Contractual POC: Alternate POC:

Public Work Contracts Core Public Works Contract Core Attn: Patty Olivas, ACQ10.PO Attn: Michelle Crook, ACQ10.MC 1220 Pacific Highway, Bldg 127 1220 Pacific Highway, Bldg 110 San Diego, CA 92132-5190 San Diego, CA 92132-5190 Office: (619) 532-3065 Office: (619) 532-1949 E-mail: patty.olivas@navy.mil E-Mail: michelle.crook@navy.mil

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES

1. EXHIBIT LINE ITEM NUMBERS (ELINS) AND UNIT PRICES: See FAR Clause 52.212-2, for price proposal submission requirements for Exhibit Line Item Numbers (ELINS) Base year and 2 options. Offerors shall enter unit prices and total amounts for each ELIN in the Base Year and for each Option Period. The Government will exercise option periods unilaterally in accordance with FAC Clause 5252.217-9301 “Option to Extend the Term of the Contract – Services (Jun 1994).” In the event there is a difference between a unit price and the extended total amount of the paper copy price proposal, the unit price will be held to be the intended price and the total amount of the ELIN will be recomputed accordingly. If the Offeror provides a total amount for an ELIN, but fails to enter the unit price, the total amount divided by the ELIN quantity will be held to be the intended price.

2. INCORPORATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: The Offeror’s technical proposal and any revisions or modifications made thereto in accordance with the contract solicitation, will be incorporated into this contract upon award by reference with the same force and effect as if set forth in full text. All contractor personnel shall meet or exceed qualification standards, experience levels, and trade background set forth in the technical proposal. In the event there is an inconsistency between the provisions of this contract and the technical proposal, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: (1) the contract (excluding the technical proposal), and then (2) the technical proposal.

3. PARTNERING REQUIREMENTS: See Section J for partnering requirements.

4. GOVERNMENT PURCHASE CARD: IDIQ work may be ordered at the prices offered, in two ways: 1) by the issuing activity using a SF Form 1449 “Order for Supplies and Services”, or 2) by an authorized Government user via a Government Purchase Card (GPC). When receiving GPC orders against ELINs the contractor shall provide the supplies and services at the offered price without additional markup or handling fee.

5. CONTRACTOR SUPPORT OF ELECTRONIC CONTRACTING (DOD EMALL): The contractor is required to offer IQ pre-priced line item services to authorized Government personnel when they are ordering the work directly via the Government Purchase Card (GPC) program. When receiving GPC orders against Section B, the contractor shall provide the services at the offered price without additional markup or handling fee.

The contractor agrees to accept and process electronically submitted GPC orders for IQ services, including those orders issued through the DoD EMALL. The DoD EMALL is a U.S. Government (USG) owned and operated web-based ordering system that enables any Department of Defense (DoD) or Federal activity to search for and order goods and services. Authorized GPC users will receive approved accounts on DoD EMALL to view and order IQ line items.

The contractor is required to receive electronic IQ orders from the DoD EMALL using 128-bit encrypted email.

The contractor agrees to purchase, install, and utilize the most recent version of PGP Personal software, or a comparable solution, for the purpose of decrypting order notification emails from the DoD EMALL. In addition, the DoD has established the External Certificate Authority (ECA) program to support the issuance of DoD-approved certificates to contractors. The ECA program is designated to provide the mechanism for contractors to securely communicate with the DoD and authenticate to DoD Information Systems. The contractor agrees to purchase, install, maintain and use a DoD-approved ECA certificate. Information on obtaining an ECA certificate can be found at http://iase.disa.mil/pki/eca/certificate.html.

The contractor shall post updates on order delivery schedule and performance to the DoD EMALL in a timely manner. The contractor shall track quantities and report total ordered quantity in DoD EMALL and approved DD 1155’s by line item number each month and year-to-date. The report shall be due to the Contracting Officer by the fifth day of each succeeding month. The contractor must track and report when total dollar value of all orders from both GPC purchases and DD 1155s exceed 75% of the combined Section B Pre-Priced Line Item quantities.

6. DATABASE REGISTRATION

a. SAM: In accordance with FAR Class Deviation - 2012-O0015, except for awards where the Government-wide purchase card (GPC) is used as the method of payment, Contracting Officers shall include the FAR Clause 52.204-7, System for Award Management (Dec 2012), in all acquisitions. See full clause in Section I.

All contractors must be registered in the SAM database prior to the award of a contract, basic agreement, basic ordering agreement, or blanket purchase agreement, in order to be eligible to receive an award. SAM is the primary registrant database for the U.S. Federal Government. SAM combines federal procurement systems and the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance into one new system. SAM includes the functionality from the following systems:

* Central Contractor Registry (CCR)

* Federal Agency Registration (FedReg)

* Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA)

* Excluded Parties List System (EPLS)

SAM collects, validates, stores, and disseminates data in support of agency acquisition missions, including Federal agency contract and assistance awards. On-line registration instructions can be accessed from the SAM home page at: www.sam.gov.

b. VETS-4212: The U.S. Department of Labor Veterans' Employment and Training service (VETS) and Office of Federal Contractor Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has supported affirmative action’s to employ and advance in employment, "covered veterans" since 2008. As legislatively mandated under 38 U.S. Code, Section 4212, codified at 41 CFR Section 61-300, respectively, contractors and subcontractors who enter into, or modify a contract or subcontract with the federal government, and whose contract meets the criteria set forth in the above legislation/regulations, are required to report annually on their affirmative action efforts in employing veterans.

VETS has a legislative requirement to collect, and make available to OFCCP, reported data contained on the VETS- 4212 report for compliance enforcement. On-line registration instructions can be accessed from the VETS-4212 home page at http://www.dol.gov/vets/vets4212.htm.

c. Executive Compensation: In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.14, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards, and the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. No.

109-282), as amended by section 6202 of the Government Funding Transparency Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-252), all Offerors are required to report subcontract award data and the total compensation of the five most highly compensated executives of the contractor and subcontractor. Refer to FAR Clause 52.204-10, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards (Jul 2013) in Section I. On-line registration and instructions can be accessed from the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) homepage at:

https://www.fsrs.gov/.

SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. EVALUATION

In accordance with FAR Clause 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items (Oct 2014), the Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1 - Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm Factor 2 - Management & Technical Approach Subfactor 2A – Management Approach Subfactor 2B – Technical Approach Factor 3 - Safety Factor 4 - Small Business Utilization Subfactor 4A - Past Performance in Utilizing Small Business Concerns Subfactor 4B - Small Business Participation Factor 5 - Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects

2. EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

3. PRE-AWARD SURVEY

(a) The Government may conduct a pre-award survey on the Offerors submitting a proposal (including subcontractors indicating firm commitments to this acquisition), to determine whether the Offeror is qualified and capable of performing the contract. The pre-award survey will involve examination of the offeror's financial status.

The pre-award survey is not a part of the technical evaluation.

(b) If the Government requests pre-award survey documents, they shall be hand delivered to the Contracting Officer or mailed to the address stated in this RFP.

(c) If requested, the following information shall be included in the pre-award survey, in a separate envelope marked “Pre-Award Survey” and submitted within the required time.

1) The Firm’s last three (3) complete fiscal years’ financial statements, audited, reviewed, or compiled by an independent accounting firm, including the accounting firm’s cover letter and full disclosure notes for the prime and each party to a joint venture. Firms shall provide its current year-to-date financial statements as of the quarter ending prior to submission of offers. Any Firm that intends to rely on the financial backing of its parent corporation must submit separate financial statements for both the partially-owned or wholly owned subsidiary and the parent corporation. If a partially-owned or wholly-owned subsidiary relying on the financial backing of a parent corporation cannot submit its own financial statements, provide a detailed explanation why. If a partially-owned or wholly-owned subsidiary which will be performing the contract is relying on a parent corporation for financial backing, a financial guarantee letter must also be submitted.

2) Financial resources available to perform the contract. Submit evidence of availability of working/operating capital that will be used for the performance of the contract. If a Firm relies on financial support from other sources, identify the maximum lines of credit that will be available to include documentation to support the amounts. The maximum lines of credit shall be based upon the inclusion of this contract effort. For joint ventures/teaming arrangements discuss the financial responsibilities among companies and provide same information.

3) In situations where there is a parent and subsidiary relationship, each Firm must indicate:

a. Whether the parent will sign the contract;

b. Whether the government will be granted access to the parent books and records to assess financial condition and capability; and

c. Whether the corporation has a “Cash Sweep” policy and/or practices that allows a parent entity to remove cash from the subsidiary.

4) A list of existing commercial and government business commitments to include contract numbers, names of Contracting Officers, telephone numbers, value of contract, completion date, or percent complete.

4. BASIS FOR AWARD

1. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contracts; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contracts to the offerors submitting the proposals determined to represent the best value - the proposals most advantageous to the Government, cost/price and other factors considered.

2. As stated in the solicitation, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract after conducting discussions with offerors whose proposals have been determined to be within the competitive range. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

3. The tradeoff process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition. The Government considers it to be in its best interest to allow consideration of award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.

4. As stated in the solicitation, all technical factors when combined are of equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating; and all technical factors and the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating, when combined are approximately equal to price.

5. Any proposal found to have a deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award, unless the deficiency is corrected through discussions. Proposals may be found to have either a significant weakness or multiple weaknesses that impact either the individual factor rating or the overall rating for the proposal. The evaluation report must document the evaluation board’s assessment of the identified weakness(s) and the associated risk to successful contract performance resulting from the weakness(s). This assessment must provide the rationale for proceeding to award without discussions.

A. ADJECTIVAL RATINGS/DESCRIPTIONS

1. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or ability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal.

a. A combined technical/risk evaluation considering risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings shall be used. The technical risk evaluation shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in the following table. Adjectival ratings and rating descriptions will be used to assign an overall rating to each technical proposal and to assign a rating for each technical factor.

Use upper case letter ratings for major technical factors as well as the overall rating. The addition of plus (+) or minus (-) to an adjective rating is not allowed.

(Rev. Apr. 11)

TABLE 1. COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Outstanding (O)

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good (G)

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable (A)

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal (M)

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable (U) Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

2. Definitions: The following definitions are provided to assist evaluators in the evaluation of each non-cost/price factor.

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

b. Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

c. Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

d. Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

B. SAFETY EVALUATION

1. Per NFAS 15.304(d), solicitations utilizing source selection procedures for procurements within the 50 United States and the District of Columbia shall contain a standard “Safety” technical evaluation factor. This factor shall be included as a stand-alone evaluation factor and not as a sub-factor or an element of the Past Performance evaluation factor. This action will result in the selection of contractors that have consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and the ability to properly manage and implement safety procedures for themselves and all tiers of subcontractors under their purview.

2. The safety evaluation has three elements: Experience Modification Rate (EMR), Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) Days Away from Work, Job Restriction, or Transfer (DART), and Technical Approach to Safety.

3. The three elements of safety identified above, are not sub-factors. The evaluators should collectively consider all elements of safety when assigning an overall adjectival rating for this factor. The SSEB will need to make a qualitative determination of the rating for this factor, taking into account the risk ratings for EMR and DART and the subjective evaluation of the narrative.

4. Evaluators will not average the rating from the three years for the EMR and the DART.

5. The following should be utilized by evaluators as a general guideline to evaluate the EMR and DART rates (blank entries will be considered unacceptable):

Risk EMR Very Low Risk Less than 0.6 Low Risk From 0.6 to less than 0.8 Moderate Risk From 0.8 to 1.0 High Risk Greater than 1.0 to 1.1 Extremely High Risk Greater than 1.1

Risk DART Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 1.0 Low Risk From 1.0 to 1.99 Moderate Risk From 2.0 to 2.99 High Risk From 3.0 to 4.0 Extremely High Risk Greater than 4.0

6. A FEC Safety representative shall be listed as an advisor to the evaluation boards in the SSP. As an advisor, a Safety representative may provide interpretation of terminology, understanding of OSHA rates, and assist with website and database searches.

C. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

1. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

2. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as projects or task orders that are at least 25% completed by the offeror within the last 5 years prior to the proposal due date, with a total award value of $5 million or more, for services related to passenger vehicle leasing, providing web-based telematics services, roadside assistance services, and preventative maintenance services, similar to the services described in the solicitation technical annexes. Award value is further defined as the total contract value, including award amount and any potential option periods that have not been awarded yet.

3. Past Performance relevancy will be rated as either “Relevant” or “Not Relevant,” as defined in Table 2, below:

TABLE 2. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

5. Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 3, below:

TABLE 3. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

D. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. The solicitation requires the evaluation of price and the following non-cost/price factors:

Factor 1 - Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm Factor 2 - Management & Technical Approach Subfactor 2A – Management Approach Subfactor 2B – Technical Approach Factor 3 - Safety Factor 4 - Small Business Utilization Subfactor 4A - Past Performance in Utilizing Small Business Concerns Subfactor 4B - Small Business Participation Factor 5 - Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects

Note: The distinction between corporate experience and past performance is that experience pertains to the types of work and volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the work covered by this requirement, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.”

2. The relative importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors is as follows:

(a) For Factor 2 – Subfactors 2A and 2B are of equal importance to the determination of the Factor 2 Rating.

(b) For Factor 4 – Subfactors 4A and 4B are of equal importance to the determination of the Factor 4 Rating.

(c) Factors 1 thru 4 are of equal importance to each other and when combined, are equal in importance to Factor 5, the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment factor.

(d) When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance/ performance confidence assessment factor combined (i.e., the non-cost/price evaluation factors) are approximately equal to Factor 6, Price.

3. The importance of price will increase if the Offeror’s non-cost/price proposals are considered essentially equal in terms of overall quality, or if price is so high as to significantly diminish the value of a non-cost/price proposal’s superiority to the Government. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

E. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH FACTOR

1. Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall be formatted as follows, in the number of copies stated.

2. A cover letter shall accompany the proposal. The cover letter shall include the following:

- Solicitation Number N62473-16-R-1002.

- Name, address, telephone, fax, and email address of Offeror.

- Point(s) of contact with title, telephone, fax, email address of person(s) authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation.

- The cover letter shall be signed by an authorized representative.

3. Submit original and four (4) hard copies of the Price Proposal and the Technical Proposal. The proposal shall be submitted in two separate volumes (Volume 1 - Technical and Volume 2 - Price) with content as specified below:

(a) NON-COST/PRICE FACTORS (VOLUME 1 - TECHNICAL)

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Submit original & four (4) hard copies, plus one CD (with documents in Microsoft Word). Technical proposal copies shall be submitted in three ring binders separate from price proposals, and clearly marked: “Volume 1 – Technical Proposal.” The technical proposal shall address each evaluation Factor in accordance with the criteria shown below under Factors 1 through 5. Provide a separate tab within Volume 1 for each factor shown below:

Tab #1: Factor 1 – Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm Tab #2: Factor 2 - Management & Technical Approach Subfactor 2A – Management Approach Subfactor 2B – Technical Approach Tab #3: Factor 3 – Safety Tab #4: Factor 4 – Small Business Utilization Subfactor 4A - Past Performance in Utilizing Small Business Concerns Subfactor 4B - Small Business Participation Tab #5: Factor 5 – Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects

(2) A copy of the Technical Proposal shall be placed on one (1) CD-ROM and inserted in the original Technical Proposal Binder - Volume 1.

(3) Failure to acknowledge any "material" amendments to the solicitation may cause an offeror's proposal to be rejected as unacceptable.

(b) PRICE FACTOR (VOLUME 2 - PRICE)

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall complete and submit (in a sealed envelope) the following in the order: Price proposal shall be submitted in separate binders from the Technical Proposal, and clearly marked “Volume 2 – Price Proposal.” Include a separate tab for each item shown below:

Tab #1: Cover Letter, and Standard Form (SF) 1449 Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items (offeror to complete blocks 12, 17, 23, 24, and 30a thru 30c). Include telephone number, facsimile number, email address, Tax Identification Number (TIN), DUNS Number, Cage Code on the SF 1449, in block 17a.

Tab #2: Exhibit Line Item Number (ELIN) Pricing: Complete a paper copy of Exhibit Line Item Number (ELIN) Pricing (see Attachment in Section J or the RFP), and an electronic version on a CD-ROM using Excel worksheets posted online at the following website: https://www.neco.navy.mil/ and/or http://www.fbo.gov.

Electronic version must be compatible with Microsoft Office 2007. Leave all excel formulas in the spreadsheet.

Tab #3: Completed Exhibit G, “Financial Questionnaire” from banking institution.

Tab #4: If Offeror is proposing as a joint venture and/or mentor-protégé, Offeror shall provide a copy of the joint venture agreement and, if the joint venture is with a mentor-protégé, a copy of the relevant mentor-protégé agreement approved by the Small Business Administration.

Tab #5: Copy of the Online Representations and Certifications from the System for Award Management, at the following website: www.sam.gov, including all completed applicable sections of the FAR Clause 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items (Mar 2015).

FACTOR 1 – RECENT, RELEVANT EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRM

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall provide the following for evaluation under Tab #1 of the Technical Proposal Volume 1 on Exhibit “A” for each project. The attached Offeror Recent, Relevant Experience of Firm Project Data Sheets, Exhibit A, is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. The Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total page limit for each project data sheet shall not exceed three single-sided pages.

NOTE: Projects submitted under Factor 1 - Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm must be the same projects submitted for Factor 5 - Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects.

(a) Submit a minimum of two (2) projects and a maximum of five (5) projects, of the Offeror, that best describes your experience on related projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the solicitation.

(b) Project experience is defined as a project performed under a single task order or commercial contract/project. For multiple award contracts and Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather Offeror shall submit the work performed under a task order project.

(c) For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as a government or commercial contract/project or task order that are at least 25% completed by the Offeror, within the last five (5) years prior to the proposal due date, with a total award value of $5 million or more, for services related to passenger vehicle leasing, providing web-based telematics services, roadside assistance services, and preventative maintenance services, similar to the services described in the solicitation technical annexes.

(d) The Government will not consider any project submitted for experience that was performed by a firm other than the Offeror, except that:

1) The Government will consider otherwise relevant projects performed by a member of a Joint Venture (JV) Offeror, provided the JV Offeror’s proposal includes a copy of the supporting JV Agreement identifying the firm in question as a member of the JV for this procurement in the Price Proposal under Tab #6;

2) The Government will consider otherwise relevant projects that were performed by the Offeror’s proposed key personnel; however, experience of proposed subcontractor employees, key or otherwise, will not be considered; and,

3) The Government will consider otherwise relevant projects performed by parent or subsidiary companies, predecessor companies, or satellite offices (i.e. any office(s) of the Offeror other than the one submitting the current proposal) of the Offeror, provided the Offeror’s proposal clearly explains how the offered experience will be effectively utilized in the performance of the solicited contract. The Government will not consider the experience of proposed subcontractors. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, if it is unclear how experience gained under a particular project will be utilized in or benefit the performance of the proposed contract, that project experience may not be considered in the evaluation.

(e) Exhibit A, Offeror Recent, Relevant Experience of Firm Project Data Sheets submitted that exceed the maximum, three single-sided page limit will be removed prior to evaluation. Project Data Sheets submitted that exceed the maximum five (5) projects allowed for consideration will be removed prior to evaluation. Exhibit A, Project Data Sheets submitted for entire multiple award contracts and/or Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type contracts as a whole will be removed prior to evaluation. Exhibit A, Project Data Sheets submitted for projects that are not at least 50% completed within five (5) years prior to the proposal due date will be removed prior to evaluation. Exhibit A, Project Data Sheets submitted for evaluation that are not for passenger vehicle leasing services, providing web-based telematics services, roadside assistance services, and preventative maintenance services, similar to the services described in the solicitation technical annexes, will be removed prior to evaluation.

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience in performing recent, relevant work prior to the proposal due date, with a total award value of $5 million or more, for services related to passenger vehicle leasing, providing web-based telematics services, roadside assistance services, and preventative maintenance services, as defined in the solicitation technical annexes. The assessment of the Offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the ability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the solicitation.

(a) Projects submitted with a total award value of $8 million or more (including all option periods) may be rated higher.

(b) Projects submitted that were subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), may be rated higher.

(c) If an Offeror performed as prime contractor on 75% of relevant projects submitted for experience may be rated higher.

(d) Projects submitted with a total award value less than $5 million may be rated lower.

(e) Offeror’s that fail to submit projects on the mandatory Exhibit A, Project Data Sheets may be rated lower.

(f) Offeror’s that fail to properly complete Exhibit A, Project Data Sheets and do not provide all requested data, a point of contact that is accessible, or a correct current phone number and email address, may be rated lower.

(Note: the Government may contact references for the submitted projects to verify information presented in Exhibit A, Project Data Sheets).

(g) If project experience is demonstrated for a JV proposal, and Offeror fails to submit projects for each JV partner, proposal may be rated lower.

FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

Factor 2 consists of two Subfactors, 2A, Management Approach and 2B, Technical Approach. The evaluation of Subfactors 2A and 2B are of equal importance to the determination of the Factor 2 Rating.

FACTOR 2A – MANAGEMENT APPROACH

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall provide the following under TAB #2 of the Technical Proposal Volume 1:

(a) Management Approach Plan: The Offeror shall submit a maximum one (1) page narrative of their proposed approach to meeting the requirements of this solicitation.

(b) Workload Management Plan: The Offeror shall submit a maximum one (1) page narrative of their proposed plan demonstrating the Offeror has the necessary ability to successfully handle surges in workload and perform and coordinate multiple delivery schedules concurrently at various locations in the NAVFAC Area of Responsibility (AOR).

(c) Subcontractor Management Plan: The Offeror shall submit a maximum one (1) page narrative of their proposed plan for monitoring and controlling subcontractors and methods to be implemented to correct poor performing subcontractors. Offeror shall address how it will ensure high quality services are provided that meet or exceed contract requirements.

(d) Quality Control Management Plan: The Offeror shall submit a maximum one (1) page narrative of their plan for addressing customer complaints and unsatisfactory performance. Offeror shall address quality control methods that will be implemented to ensure performance meets or exceeds contract requirements.

(e) Self-Performance Management Plan: The Offeror shall submit a maximum one (1) page narrative of their proposed plan to ensure not less than 25% percent of the total cost of contract performance is expended for employees of the Offeror. Offeror shall explain the process for correcting non-compliance of 25% percent subcontracting limitations and shall identify a timeline for implementing corrective action for non-compliance of 25% percent subcontracting limitations reported semi-annually to the Contracting Officer.

(f) Delivery Schedule Management Plan: The Offeror shall submit a maximum two (2) page narrative of their plan demonstrating the ability to successfully deliver electric vehicles per the required delivery schedule (see Section J Attachment in the RFP).

FACTOR 2B – TECHNICAL APPROACH

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall provide the following under TAB #2 of the Technical Proposal Volume 1:

(a) Electric Vehicle Leasing Technical Approach: The Offeror shall submit a maximum one (1) page narrative demonstrating the ability to successfully lease electric vehicles which meet or exceed the contract requirements, which includes the minimum required vehicle specifications.

(b) Preventative Maintenance Technical Approach: The Offeror shall submit a maximum one (1) page narrative demonstrating the ability to successfully perform preventative maintenance on leased vehicles which meets or exceeds the manufacturer’s requirements.

(c) Telematics Technical Approach: The Offeror shall submit a maximum one (1) page narrative demonstrating the ability to successfully provide telematics systems on each vehicle which meet or exceed the contract requirements. The Offeror shall describe type and ability of system, including how data is collected, secured and communicated. The Offeror shall include what type of data can be collected with proposed telematics system.

(d) Roadside Assistance Technical Approach: The Offeror shall submit a maximum one (1) page narrative demonstrating the necessary ability to successfully provide roadside assistance which meets or exceeds the contract requirements.

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The objective of this portion of the offeror’s proposal is to demonstrate to the Government that the Offeror has a plan and the ability to carry out that plan to manage and control this entire contract as laid out in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

(a) Failure to provide any of the elements described within the Management Approach may result in a lower rating.

(b) Self-Performance Management Plan: Offerors who propose to self-perform more than 25% percent of the cost of contract performance may receive a higher rating. Offerors who propose to self-perform less than 25% percent of the cost of contract performance may receive a lower rating.

(c) Electric Vehicle Leasing Technical Approach: Offerors who exceed the minimum vehicle specifications may receive a higher rating.

FACTOR 3 – SAFETY:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit the following under TAB #3 of the Technical Proposal Volume 1. (For a partnership or joint venture, the following submittal requirements are required for each contractor who is part of the partnership or joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. EMR and DART Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.) Exhibit B, Safety Data & Narrative Sheet, is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit safety information.

(a) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): For the three previous complete calendar years (2012, 2013, and 2014), submit your EMR (which compares your company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums over a three year period). If you have no EMR, affirmatively state so, and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the EMR and upward or downward trends should be addressed as part of this element.

(b) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate: For the three previous complete calendar years (2012, 2013, and 2014), submit your OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If you cannot submit an OSHA DART Rate, affirmatively state so, and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART Rate data and upward or downward trends should be addressed as part of this element.

(c) Technical Approach for Safety: Describe the plan that the Offeror will implement to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors, as a part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors. Also, describe any innovative methods that the Offeror will employ to ensure and monitor safe work practices at all subcontractor levels. The Safety Narrative shall be limited to two (2) pages.

(d) Basis of Evaluation: The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety record, the Offeror’s plan to select and monitor subcontractors, and any innovative safety methods that the Offeror plans to implement for this procurement.

The Government’s sources of information for evaluating safety may include, but are not limited to, OSHA, NAVFAC’s Facility Accident and Incident Reporting (FAIR) database, and other related databases. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete safety information regarding these submittal requirements rests with the Offeror. The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

Experience Modification Rate (EMR) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate Offeror Technical Approach to Safety Other sources of information available to the Government

* Note: Blank entries will be considered unacceptable.

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): The Government will evaluate the EMR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating. Lower EMRs will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate: The Government will evaluate the OSHA DART Rate to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates. Lower OSHA DART Rates will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(3) Technical Approach to Safety: The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the selection of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project. The Government will also evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which innovations are being proposed that may enhance safety on this procurement. Those Offerors whose plan demonstrates a commitment to hire subcontractors with a culture of safety and who propose innovative methods to enhance a safe working environment may be given greater weight in the evaluation.

FACTOR 4 – SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION

(a) Per NFAS 15.304(a), “For unrestricted acquisitions, the SSP shall include an evaluation factor for Small Business Utilization, which shall be weighted at least equal to the highest ranking technical factor.”

(b) Small business participation shall be a stand-alone evaluation factor in the technical factors. Utilize all ratings outlined in Table 4, depending on the treatment of risk. References to the term “requirements” in the technical rating description at Table 4, shall equate to small business requirements, often reflected in the RFP as small business objectives.

(c) Small business participation will be evaluated utilizing the technical ratings outlined in this SSP.

References to the term “requirements” in the technical rating description shall equate to small business requirements, as reflected in the RFP as small business objectives.

Table 4. Technical Ratings Rating Description Outstanding (O) Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good (G) Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable (A) Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal (M) Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable (U) Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

The strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies (as defined below) of each proposal for each technical…