Attachment__6_Section_L_and_Section_M.pdf

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR

QUOTERS

UW L-2-0001 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

1.1 General Information

All questions concerning this procurement, either technical or contractual, must be submitted via email.

No direct discussion between the technical representative and prospective Offeror will be conducted.

Questions and proposals shall be submitted to the following point of contact:

Name: Kristina Michael

Email: Kristina.Michael@navy.mil

1.2 Submission Requirements

(a) Each Offeror shall submit its entire proposal electronically. The Government will evaluate each

Offeror's understanding of the Government's requirements and ability to perform the work on the basis of its proposal. Offerors shall provide information and documentation in detail to clearly identify its overall qualifications.

(b) Offerors shall comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposals;

proposals that do not comply may be considered unacceptable and may render the offer ineligible for award.

1.3 Proposal Format

(a) The proposal shall be submitted in the English language. The narrative material in the proposal 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) Proposals and all attachments shall be readable by Microsoft Office or Adobe Acrobat. The technical portion of the proposal shall not exceed ten (10) pages in length

(c) Offerors are required to submit their proposals in separate volumes as follows:

Volume Volume Title Maximum

Number of Pages

I Pass/Fail Requirements Unlimited

II Technical Proposal 10

III Past Performance 10

IV Cost/Price Unlimited

Important: Offerors shall not include classified material in the volumes.

(d) Offerors shall provide a cover letter with the following information:

mailto:Kristina.Michael@navy.mil

(1) Solicitation number;

(2) The name, address, email address, telephone numbers, CAGE Code, DUNS, and Tax

Identification Number (TIN) of the Offeror;

(3) A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item. Also identify any exceptions the Offeror takes to the terms and conditions of the solicitation;

(4) A statement that the proposal is valid through 90 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of proposals;

(5) Names, titles, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation;

(6) DCAA and DCMA office points of contact, including branch location, contact name, telephone number, and email address;

(7) Name, title, and signature of a person authorized to sign the proposal;

(8) Identify all enclosures being transmitted as part of its proposal; and,

(9) If the Offeror (prime and/or subcontractor) is proposing on a cost reimbursement basis (e.g., Cost plus Fixed Fee), include the status of the Offeror’s accounting system and provide supporting documentation (e.g., DCMA letter confirming adequacy of accounting system).

(e) Offerors shall provide fill-in information for all clauses/provisions that require it.

2.0 PASS/FAIL REQUIREMENTS

The Offeror shall submit the following information with its proposal, which will be evaluated as a pass or fail in relation to the solicitation requirements. An Offeror receiving a rating of Fail in any requirement will not be eligible for award.

a). Compliance with UW H-2-0004; CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE ON A GOVERNMENT SITE (AUG 2017). The Offeror shall submit a plan providing the approach to meeting the requirements of UW H-2-0004; the plan shall detail the Offeror’s process for completing the SF85 form, obtaining badging, and outline the schedule for obtaining any required new badging by the time of performance, which is expected within 30 days of task order award.

b). The Offeror shall submit a transition plan which addresses how the Offeror plans to support the tasking of the SOW upon award of the Task Order, until it reaches full operational tempo which is expected within 30 days of task order award.

3.0 NON-COST/PRICE FACTORS

Offerors shall provide information by addressing each factor in the format and sequence identified in the solicitation. 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 proposed response to the evaluation factors. The proposal shall be detailed and clearly stated to allow an assessment by the Government without the need for additional clarifications. All information and data provided shall be specific to this solicitation. Proposals that do not contain the information required in the solicitation risk being determined Unacceptable by the Government.

In the response to the RFP, the Offeror must address the below factors:

3.1 Technical Capability: The Offeror shall demonstrate, in detail, the following:

(a) How the work will be performed to execute all aspects of the Statement of Work (SOW) at the task order level for the following:

4.1 Pre-Modification Planning

4.2 Installation, Modification, Removal and Transportation of Systems Furniture

4.3 Furniture Inventory Management.

(b) A narrative of the Offeror’s knowledge of how each of the brands (listed below) are assembled, connected and reconfigured to provide a stable workstation and cubicle. The different brands of

Systems Furniture that are currently utilized at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division

Newport (NUWCDIVNPT) are: Herman Miller, Knoll, Teknion, Steelcase and Maxon. Provide a narrative of the offerors’ knowledge and ability to perform warehouse inventory management.

3.2 Past Performance: Offerors shall provide information relative to past performance:

Provide a list of pertinent contracts and subcontracts, maximum five (5), that are currently in process or have been completed during the past three (3) years from the release of the solicitation.

(a) Contracts listed shall include those entered into with Federal, State or Local governments as well as commercial customers.

(b) Offerors that are newly formed entities without prior contract experience as this entity shall provide contracts and/or subcontracts past performance references, as required above, for all personnel. The Offeror is reminded that the Past Performance volume shall be no more than ten

(10) pages in length. Include the following information for each contract and/or subcontract:

(1) Contract Number

(2) Period of Performance

(3) Name of contracting activity or commercial firm

(4) Contract type, and indicate if performance is/was as a prime or subcontractor

(5) Total contract value

(6) Brief narrative (less than 20 lines) describing the individual’s involvement in the effort, relevance, complexity, objective achieved, and labor category of personnel who performed under the contract. Include a list of all major subcontractors where applicable.

(7) Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) and telephone number

(8) Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO), if different, and telephone number

(9) Government Program Manager or Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), and telephone, or non-Government official with similar duties or rank.

4.0 COST/PRICE

The Offeror shall provide a total price for evaluation based on the Offeror’s proposed on the base and

Option years for this effort in accordance with the Section B pricing structure.

The following Provision is incorporated by Reference:

52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL 1990)

The following Clauses are incorporated by Full Text:

HQ M-2-0001 BASIS OF AWARD (NAVSEA) (SEP 1990)

All CLINs, including Option CLINs (if exercised) will be awarded to one Offeror. Offers, therefore, must be on the basis of furnishing all CLINs.

HQ M-2-0009 LANGUAGE REGARDING CONTRACT AWARD

Attention is directed to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.215-1 which provides that the contract will be awarded to that responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation. "Factors" shall include all of those evaluation factors which are described in this Section M.

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

UW M-2-0001 EVALUATION FACTORS

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1 General Information

(a) The Government intends to make a single award as a result of this RFP. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror meeting all Pass/Fail requirements of the solicitation and whose proposal 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-cost/price) features of proposals with the difference in the cost/price to the Government.

(b) The Government intends to award a contract without discussions (except for clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)), as permitted by FAR 15.306(a)(3) and FAR 52.215-1. However, the

Government reserves the right to conduct discussions to permit Offerors to revise their proposals.

1.2 Relative Importance

The following table indicates all factors that will be considered for award.

Volume Volume Title

I Pass/Fail Requirements

II Technical Capability

III Past Performance

IV Cost/Price

Technical Factor Capability and Past Performance are essentially equal. All evaluation factors other than

Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price. Cost will increase in importance as competing proposals approach Technical Capability/Past Performance equality or when it is so significantly high as to diminish the value of technical superiority to the Government.

2.0 PASS/FAIL REQUIREMENTS

Offerors must receive a Pass rating under each Pass/Fail Requirement to be eligible for award. The

Pass/Fail rating criteria is as follows:

REQUIREMENT PASS FAIL

Compliance with clause UW H-2-0004

CONTRACTOR

REQUIREMENTS FOR

PERFORMANCE ON A

GOVERNMENT SITE (AUG

2017)

The plan provides an adequate approach to meeting the requirements of UW H-2-0004 which details the Offeror’s process for completing the

SF85 form, obtaining badging, and outlines the schedule for obtaining any required new badging by the time of performance which is expected within 30 days of task order award.

The plan does not provide an adequate approach to meeting the requirements UW H-2-0004, does not detail the Offeror’s process for completing the SF85 form or obtaining badging, and/or fails to outline the schedule for obtaining any required new badging by the time of performance which is expected within 30 days of task order award OR, the Offeror does not submit a plan with its proposal.

Transition Plan The transition plan is realistic and, in conjunction with the rest of the proposal. In brief, the transition plan addresses how the

Offeror plans to support the tasking of the SOW upon award of the Task Order until it reaches full operational tempo which is expected within 30 days of task order award.

The transition plan does not realistically address how the

Offeror plans to support the tasking of the SOW upon award of the Task Order until it reaches full operational tempo, which is expected within 30 days of award

OR the Offeror does not submit a transition plan with its proposal.

3.0 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

The Government will perform an evaluation of the Technical Capability and Past Performance evaluation factors 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.

(a) Technical Capability: The Offeror will be evaluated on its technical approach to performing the required work beyond simply restating the requirements of the SOW. The technical approach shall demonstrate that the Offeror knows how each brand of furniture is connected, disconnected and assembled for stability. The Offeror shall demonstrate it has the tools and equipment capable of providing for the removal and transport of the furniture to the Government provided storage facility. The

Offeror shall demonstrate that it has the capability of providing for inventory management and warehousing functions for the proper storage of the inventory.

(b) Past Performance: Past performance is a measure of the degree to which the Offeror satisfied its customer’s requirements in the past. The past performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. The Government may consider past performance information contained in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government may also use other information such as CPARS or other data available from Government and non-government sources to evaluate an Offeror’s past performance. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact, and contact references other than those provided by the

Offeror. The Government may contact all or some of each Offeror’s customers to ask whether or not the customer believes: (1) that the Offeror is capable, efficient and effective; (2) that the Offeror’s performance conformed to the terms and conditions of its contract; (3) that the Offeror was reasonable and cooperative during performance; (4) that the Offeror was committed to customer satisfaction; (5) that the Offeror was able to hire and retain qualified personnel; and (6) if given a chance, would the customer select the same or a different Contractor. The Government may consider past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror, including Federal, State, and local

Government agencies, Better Business Bureaus, published media and electronic databases. 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.

(c) Cost/Price: The Government will evaluate proposed prices by performing a price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) procedures.

3.1 Ratings: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

RATING DESCRIPTION

Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. 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 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.

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.

3.2 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. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

The first is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

The second is 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 prior performance 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 history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

There are four 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

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 Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort

Relevant 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 third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted 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. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings 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.

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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.