Attachment_3_-_Section_L_and_Section_M_as_revised_in_Amendment_0005.pdf

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 offers 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 offer 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 quote. 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 quotes; quotes that do not comply may be considered unacceptable and may render the Offeror ineligible for award.

1.3. Quote Format

(a) The quote shall be submitted in the English language. The narrative material 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. The technical portion of the quote shall not exceed two (2) pages in length

(c) Offerors shall submit their quotes in separate volumes as follows:

VOLUME VOLUME TITLE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PAGES

I Technical Capability 4 pages (consists of 2 page maximum for Technical Approach and 2 page maximum for Personnel)

-Technical Approach -Personnel II Past Performance 6 pages (consists of 2 page maximum per past performance reference; up to 3 past performance references may be submitted; see Section L paragraph 3.2(a)(3).)

III Price 6

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

(1) Solicitation number;

(2) The name, address, email address, telephone numbers, and Cage Code, DUNS Number, 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 request for quote (RFQ) 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 RFQ;

(4) A statement that the proposal is valid through 60 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of proposals;

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

(6) Identify all enclosures being transmitted as part of its proposal.

3.0 NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

3.1 Technical Capability

(A) Technical Approach – The offeror shall demonstrate an understanding of the task requirements described in the Statement of Work and a feasible and reliable means of performance.

This includes providing a plan to ensure diving equipment will be maintained in an operational status for test events and to maintain safe diving procedures. The offeror must also detail demonstrated experience with diving operations as follows:

-Underwater vehicle/equipment recovery operations (e.g. bottomed torpedoes, unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs), cables, etc.);

-Description and storage location of equipment to be available (e.g. SCUBA, surface-supplied equipment, cold water diving gear, cable jetting equipment, underwater digitial still/video, closed-circuit video, communications, depth sensing, decompression chamber, etc.);

-Familiarity with Narragansett Bay Waters and other Southern New England coastal areas; and, -Estimate of minimum response times for support of test events described in Section 4.0 of the SOW.

(B) Personnel - The offeror shall provide data concerning the qualifications of the personnel proposed.

(i) For labor categories Diving Supervisor and Dive Team Member: describe formal training, work experience, or other pertinent qualifications, which specifically relate to this procurement. Examples:

Qualifications, certifications, licenses, Association memberships, or U.S. Navy Diving equivalent training. Qualifications shall include general certifications for the type of work being performed as well as any specialty certifications. In addition, offeror shall provide up to date certification of personnel operating and maintaining decompression chamber. Certifications are excluded from the page count.

(ii) Identify all proposed personnel who are not currently employees of the offeror, or are who are proposed to permanently relocate. Provide a statement signed by that person indicating willingness to be hired or relocated if the contract is awarded to the offeror. NOTE: Compensation shall only be included in the price proposal, not the technical proposal. If the signed statement includes any references or enclosures the offeror shall provide the references and enclosures with the statement as part of the proposal. Failure to provide references or enclosures or submission of enclosures that violate DFARS subpart 222-7402 and DFARS clause 252.222-7006 may render an offeror's proposal ineligible for award.

(iii) Personnel Management: Identify the Senior Technical Representative (STR) designated to manage tasks. Address the STR’s authority and ability to independently commit company resources to performance under the contract, and the STR’s line of communications to senior company management. Describe the STR’s previous experience managing similar efforts.

3.2 Past Performance

(a) The Offeror shall provide up to three (3) past performance references, if available, that reflect recent and relevant experience performed within three (3) years of the solicitation closing date specified in this requirement. Past performance references shall include contract/task order number, contract/task order type, program name, total contract/task order cost, short description of work performed (less than 20 lines) describing your involvement in the effort, complexity, objectives achieved, and labor categories associated with the contract. List ships or military systems involved, if any, and names and valid telephone numbers for the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), and Program Manager (PM).

(1) Past performance references shall demonstrate the ability to handle the scope and breadth of the tasking in the SOW. Discuss how the references provided are relevant to the work being proposed.

(2) Describe any quality awards or certifications that indicate the offeror possesses a high-quality process for developing and producing the services required.

(3) Each past performance reference shall not exceed two (2) pages per reference, for a total of six (6) pages.

3.3 Price

The offeror shall provide price information for each of the tasks identified in the Statement of Work using the attached pricing spreadsheet, filling out the yellow highlighted cells. The offeror shall propose day rates for the required labor categories (or hourly rates in the case of SOW Task 4.1). The offeror shall provide day rates for any vessel used. Cancellation rates shall be provided for the various labor rates and vessels proposed.

UW M-2-0001 EVALUATION FACTORS

(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-price) features of proposals with the difference in the cost to the Government. Offers will be evaluated on three evaluation factors, TECHNICAL CAPABILITY, PAST PERFORMANCE, and

COST/PRICE.

3.0 NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

(3.1) TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

The Government will evaluate proposals to assess each offeror's ability to perform the Statement of Work requirements. Technical Capability consists of the following two (2) sub factors:

(A) Technical Approach. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror demonstrated its understanding of the task requirements described in the Statement of Work and a feasible and reliable approach to performance.

(B) Personnel:

(i) The Government will evaluate the proposed Diving Supervisor and Dive Team Member’s formal training, work experience, or other pertinent qualifications, which specifically relate to this procurement in terms of their effect on the likelihood of successful performance of the SOW. The Government will evaluate qualifications, certifications, licenses, Association memberships, U.S. Navy Diving equivalent training, certifications for the type of work being performed as well as any specialty certifications against requirements of the applicable documents identified in the SOW. In addition, the Government will verify that the certification of personnel operating and maintaining decompression chamber is current as required by Applicable Document 3.1.

(ii) The Government will evaluate the proposed personnel team to determine how well the team is suited to perform the tasking described in the Statement of Work.

(iii) The Government will evaluate the proposed STR’s qualifications to manage tasks, including their authority, ability to independently commit company resources to performance under this contract and their line of communication to senior company management. The Government will also evaluate the proposed STR’s previous experience managing similar efforts. If the STR is proposed as a part of the Level of Effort, the Government will also evaluate the STR’s qualifications as compared to the procurement requirements. If the STR is not proposed as part of the level of effort performing on-site at NUWCDIVNPT, the Government will evaluate the Contractor’s submission on how the STR can effectively and efficiently manage day-to-day tasks from a remote location.

(3.2) PAST PERFORMANCE

The past performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to provide products and services that meet its customers’ needs based on a demonstrated record of performance. The Government may consider past performance information contained in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). The Government may also contact all or some of each offeror’s customers to obtain past performance information. 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. 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.

(a) Relative Importance. All non-price evaluation factors and subfactors are equal and are more important than Price.

Although Price is the less important evaluation factor, it is important and will be seriously considered. The degree of its importance will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to non-price evaluation factors, or when it is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government.

(b) Adjectival Ratings

(1) The Government will perform an evaluation of the non-price evaluation factors and sub 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 sub factor. Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

(2) Combined Technical/Risk Rating: The following combined technical/risk ratings include consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Definitions:

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.

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

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.

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

(c) Past Performance Evaluation

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method 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.

The past performance evaluation will result 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 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.

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.

(d) 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.

DEFINITIONS

Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

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 (Note: contracts performed within the last three years are considered recent for this requirement).

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.