Solicitation_N66604-16-Q-3651_REV_1.pdf

N66604-16-Q-3651

PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE NOTICE CAREFULLY AS IT CONSTITUTES THE ONLY NOTICE

THAT WILL BE ISSUED.

This is a combined synopsis and solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in FAR

Subpart 12.6 as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; quotes are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. The Request for

Quotation (RFQ) number is N66604-16-Q-3651.

The Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport (NUWCDIVNPT) intends to award a purchase order for the following items:

CLIN No. Item Description Qty.

0001 Services Staff and Operate Fitness Center in accordance with Statement of Work (SOW), Contract Data

Requirements List (CDRLs), Performance Requirements

Summary Table (Attachment 1) and Incidental Government

Property Made Available (Attachment 2) for one Base Year.

1 YR

0002 Same as above: Option Year 1 1 YR

0003 Same as above: Option Year 2 1 YR

0004 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLs) (Exhibit A)

Information Only

Not Separately Priced

5 EA

This procurement is 100% small business set aside requirement as concurred with by the NUWCDIVNPT Office of

Small Business Programs (OSBP). The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code for this acquisition is 561210; the small business size standard is $38,500,000.00.

Incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-89. The provision at FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items applies to this solicitation. The provision at FAR

52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items applies to this solicitation. FAR clauses

52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions – Commercial Items, 52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders – Commercial Items and 52.209-11, Representation by Corporations

Regarding Delinquent Tax apply to this solicitation. DFARS clauses 252.204-7008, Compliance with Safeguarding

Covered Defense Information Controls, 252.204-7009, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Third Party

Contractor Reported Cyber Incident Information and 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and

Cyber Incident Reporting apply to this solicitation.

This requirement will be awarded to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantage to the Government, price and other factors considered. Price must be inclusive the base year and both option years and other factors as described in Clauses L31, M32 and M40 listed below.

The following addenda or additional terms and conditions apply: Defense Priorities and Allocations Systems

(DPAS) rating is DO-C9.

Period of Performance for Base Year: 10/01/2016 through 09/30/2017

Period of Performance Option Year 1: 10/01/2017 through 09/30/2018

Period of Performance Option Year 2: 10/01/2018 through 09/30/2019

Place of Performance is NUWCDIVNPT, Bldg. 80, Fitness Center, Newport, R.I. 02841.

Payment will be made via Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF).

Full text of incorporated FAR/DFARS clauses and provisions are available at: www.acquisition.gov/far.

This solicitation requires registration with the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to award, pursuant to applicable regulations and guidelines. Registration information can be found at www.sam.gov.

http://www.acquisition.gov/far

Quotes shall include price, delivery terms, and the following additional information with submissions: point of contact (including phone number and email address), contractor cage code, and contractor DUNS number. Quotes received after the closing date and time specified will be ineligible for award.

Quotes shall be submitted electronically to Mrs. Pamela J. Sheehan-McGuire at pamela.sheehanmcguir@navy.mil and must be received on or before Thursday, September 22, 2016, 2 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). For information on this requirement, please email Pamela J. Sheehan-

McGuire.

L31 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

(a) ORGANIZATION: In the Technical Proposal provide information and documentation in sufficient detail to clearly identify your overall qualifications. Divide the proposal into the following sections, in the order listed.

Technical Approach

Past Performance

(b) TECHNICAL APPROACH:

The offeror shall detail their technical approach in a Technical Capability Statement (no more than ten typed pages) to accomplish all the following Statement of Work requirements:

i) The offeror shall demonstrate that it is capable of performing all aspects of how the work will be performed in the Statement of Work of the solicitation by addressing each task.

ii) The offeror shall demonstrate how the offeror will meet each of the qualifications, Requirements, & skills stated below (a. through d.).

Qualifications, Requirements & Skills:

a. Minimum of a High School Diploma and courses in and/or experience in counseling personnel in proper nutrition and/or healthy lifestyles is required.

b. Personnel must have a minimum of two (2) years of professional experience in health and fitness career field. Experience in preventative exercise programs, particularly in a corporate or Government environment, is required.

c. Personnel must have a minimum of two (2) years teaching group exercise classes.

d. Personnel must possess and provide current certifications in the following areas:

1. Personal Trainer*

2. Group Exercise*

3. CPR*

4. AED*

5. Zumba

6. Yoga

7. Any other specialty group exercise classes proposed

*Certification marked with an asterisk must be possessed by all fitness instructors.

iii) Identify all proposed personnel who are not currently employees of the Offeror or proposed

Subcontractor, or who are proposed to permanently relocate. Provide a statement (i.e., letter of intent) signed by the person indicating willingness to be hired or relocated if the contract is awarded to the

Offeror, and specifying compensation.

NOTE: Any personnel statement (e.g., signed letters of intent) will not be considered in the total page count (ten pages) of the Technical Capability Statement.

mailto:pamela.sheehanmcguir@navy.mil

iv) Clearly states the Offeror’s personnel plan regarding personnel availability at time of award, the total number of personnel proposed, the number of working shifts proposed, and the number of personnel proposed per working shift.

(c) PAST PERFORMANCE:

The offeror shall include with its proposal (3) past performance references which reflect recent and relevant experience performed within the past five years that demonstrates the ability to handle the scope and breadth of the work.

i) The Offeror must include the following information with each reference:

Contract Title

Date of Award

Name of contracting activity or commercial firm

Contract Type

Total contract value

Brief narrative (less than 20 lines) describing your involvement in the effort, relevance, complexity, objectives achieved, and types of personnel who performed under the contract.

Procuring Contracting Officer*, and telephone number

Administrative Contracting Officer*, if different, and telephone number

Government Program Manager* or COR, and telephone

*Or non-Government official with similar duties or rank

ii) Past performance information should not exceed three (3) pages. These pages will not be counted against the proposal page count.

iii) The Government may also use other information such as CPARS data available from Government sources to evaluate Offeror’s past performance. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact and to contact references other than those provided by the Offeror.

(d) PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR:

The offeror shall provide a proposal that includes a Total Firm Fixed Price for each priced Contract Line

Item Number (CLIN) as well as a cumulative Total Firm Fixed Price for all CLINs. Please note: CLINs 0004.

The offeror shall provide sufficiently detailed information to allow the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness of the proposed costs. The offeror shall provide a single summary spreadsheet that supports the total amount of all CLINs listed in Section B.

M32 EVALUATION FOR AWARD - BEST VALUE

(a) Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal contains the combination of those criteria offering the best overall value to the Government. This will be determined by comparing the difference in value of technical

(non-cost) features of proposals with the difference in the cost to the Government. Offers will be evaluated on three evaluation factors:

(1) Technical Capability

(2) Past Performance

(3) Price

(b) For evaluation purposes, Technical Capability is as important as Past Performance. Technical Capability and

Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

M40 ADJECTVAL RATINGS (SEP 2011)

The Government will perform an evaluation of the Technical Capability and Past Performance evaluation factors and subfactors based on the Offeror’s proposal. This evaluation focuses on strengths and weaknesses of the

Offeror’s proposal, resulting in the assignment of an adjectival rating for each factor and subfactor. Cost/Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

Note: The following adjectival ratings/definitions shall be used for the Technical Capability evaluation factors and subfactors:

Ratings: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding 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.

Purple Good 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.

Green Acceptable 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.

Yellow Marginal 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.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

Definitions:

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

15.001.

Significant Weakness in the proposal 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 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. 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 proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased

Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. (For firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk definition.)

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

Past Performance Evaluation

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 shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror's contract history that would 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 four levels of relevancy as shown below. When source selections require a greater level of discrimination within the past performance evaluation, the source selection team shall use all four of the relevancy ratings identified below. However, for those source selections requiring less discrimination in the past performance evaluation, the team may use, as a minimum, "Relevant" and "Not Relevant" past performance ratings. The solicitation, and if required the SSP, shall clearly identify the treatment of relevancy within past performance evaluation. 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.

The following adjectival ratings/definitions shall be used for the Past Performance evaluation factors:

Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

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.

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.

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. Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii) and DFARS 215.305(a)(2).

Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation are as follows:

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

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), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), 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.

Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in shown below. (Reference FAR 15.305(2) for information on assigning an unknown/neutral confidence rating.)

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.