N6660416Q2810_Amendment_1_Attachment_2.pdf

N66604-16-Q-2810 Attachment 2: FAR Provision 52.212-5 Addendum

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

QUOTE SUBMISSION

1.0 Offerors must respond to all requirements of the solicitation document. Submit quotes electronically, including attachments, via email to Alison Wicks at alison.c.wicks@navy.mil.

1.1 Quote Format

(a) The quote shall be submitted in the English language. The narrative in the quote shall be prepared in no smaller than 10 point font, single-spaced, with no less than a one inch margin on all sides. In the event photo reduction is used for tables, charts, and drawings, their presentation must be clear and legible. No pictures or hyperlinks are allowed.

(b) Quotes and all attachments shall be readable by Microsoft Office or Adobe Acrobat.

(c) Quotes shall include a statement that it is valid through 90 days from the date specified for receipt of quotes.

(d) Offerors shall provide fill-in information for the following areas of the solicitation:

- Section B Contract Line Item Prices

- Section D Storage Facility Location

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1 General Information

The Government intends to make a single award as a result of this Request For Quote (RFQ).

Award will be made to the responsible offeror meeting all requirements of the solicitation and whose quote contains the combination of those factors offering the best overall value to the Government. The best overall value to the Government will be determined by comparing the difference in value of technical (non-price) features of quotes with the difference in the price to the Government.

2.0 PRICE

The Government will evaluate proposed prices by performing price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). The contractor may be contacted to supply cost and price data to support its proposed price.

3.0 NON-PRICE FACTORS

The Government will perform an evaluation of the non-price evaluation factors including Technical Capability and Past Performance. Offerors shall provide information by addressing mailto:alison.c.wicks@navy.mil each factor. The offeror must provide information in sufficient detail to allow the Government to make a best value assessment of the offeror’s capability to support the response to the evaluation factors. The quote shall be detailed and clearly stated to allow an assessment by the Government without the need for additional information.

3.1 Technical Capability (not to exceed 6 total pages)

3.1.1 Offerors shall provide detailed documentation demonstrating the proposed items meet the Governments requirements identified in attachment #1. The specifications of all proposed items shall be submitted with the quote.

3.1.2 Offerors shall provide documentation demonstrating the proposed cable is Universal Joint Consortium qualified or provide a description of how it will be qualified .

3.1.3 Offerors shall describe how cable will be transported from the factory to the cable depot storage facility.

3.1.4 Offerors shall provide a timeline identifying significant manufacturing events to demonstrate the ability to meet the required delivery dates.

3.1.5 Offerors shall identify the location of the proposed storage facility. If the Offeror does not own the storage facility, the Offeror shall provide an attestation of a commitment or explicit arrangement that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase, or otherwise acquire the storage facilities.

3.2 Technical Capability Ratings: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Quote meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

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

Green Acceptable Quote 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.

Yellow Marginal Quote does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The quote has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Quote does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Quote is unawardable.

3.2.1 Definitions

Weakness is defined as a flaw in the quote that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness in the quote is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency is defined as a material failure of a quote to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a quote that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an offeror's quote that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

3.3 Past Performance (not to exceed 6 pages, but see paragraph 3.3.2)

3.3.1 Past performance will be evaluated as an indicator of the offeror’s expected future performance. Provide three (3) past performance references for contracts and subcontracts with a value exceeding $100,000 that are currently in process or were completed within three (3) years of this solicitation closing date.

The past performance references should reflect relevant experience demonstrating the ability to manufacture and store the required items. Past performance references shall include those entered into with federal, state or local Governments as well as commercial customers. Include the following information for each past performance reference:

• Contract Number/Title

• Date of Award and Period of Performance

• Name of contracting activity or commercial firm

• Contract type

• Total contract value

• Brief narrative (less than 20 lines) describing your involvement in the effort, complexity, objectives achieved, and types of personnel who performed under the contract. List ships or military systems involved, if any. List major subcontractors, if any.

• Procuring Contracting Officer* and telephone

• Administrative Contracting Officer*, if different, and telephone

• Government Program Manager* or COR, and telephone *Or non-Government official with similar duties or rank

3.3.2 Provide similar past performance information for major subcontractors, if applicable (the past performance page count limitation will be increased to 12 total pages if major subcontractors are included). A subcontractor is considered major if performing more than 25% of the effort in terms of dollars).

3.3.3 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.

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. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant is unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration is given to those aspects of an offeror's contract history that give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity; dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

There are two levels of relevancy as shown below. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Rating Description 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.

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.

Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation are as follows:

Past performance information may be provided by the offeror, as solicited.

The Contracting Officer will consider all available information concerning the offeror’s past performance whether contained in the quote or not. This may include information furnished by points of contact not named in the quote or information from other sources such as commercial rating services. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Past performance information may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition. Past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

The evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in shown below:

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 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.

(Reference FAR 15.305(a)(2) for information on assigning an unknown/neutral confidence rating).

3.3.4 Definitions

Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. For this requirement, recent past performance references are those currently in process or those that were completed within three (3) years of this solicitation closing date.

Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

4.0 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

Technical Capability and Past Performance are listed in descending order of importance. When combined, Technical Capability and Past Performance are significantly more important than Price. However, Price is important and will be seriously considered. The importance of price will increase with the degree of equality of the offerors in relation to the non-price factors, or when it is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the other factors to the Government.

5.0 AWARD AND ACCEPTANCE

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

3.0 NON-PRICE FACTORS