Amendment0001.docx

M6785418R5037

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been modified:

SOW/PSPEC

SEE ATTACHMENTS:

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

SECTION L

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors

L-1.0 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS FOR THE SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

L-1.1. INTRODUCTION

a. A single concise and comprehensive proposal is required. Organization, clarity, accuracy of information, relevance, and completeness are of prime importance. The proposal shall be complete and clear in all respects without the need for additional explanation or information. The proposal shall be in sufficient detail and scope to permit the Government to evaluate it with respect to the evaluation factors specified in Section M of the solicitation.

b. Unnecessarily elaborate proposals beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are not desired. Offerors shall confine their submission to essential matters, sufficient to define their offer, and provide an adequate basis for evaluation. Likewise, offerors are cautioned against general, vague, or unsubstantiated statements, which prevent or render difficult the Government’s evaluation of the proposal. Statements such as "will comply," or "noted and understood" without supporting narrative to define compliance may cause an offeror to be evaluated as not acceptable. Moreover, the Government will not assume that an offeror possesses any capability, understanding, and/or commitment that is not specifically delineated and supported in its respective proposal.

c. A ceiling on the number of pages in the proposal has been imposed, as indicated in the sections below. In the event that an offeror exceeds the maximum page limitations provided below, the Government will only evaluate the pages that comply with the maximum number prescribed (starting with page one and continuing until the maximum number is reached) for the respective volume. All pages, or any other material, in excess of the maximum number of pages stated will not be evaluated.

d. As prescribed by 52.215-1, the Government may award on the basis of initial offers received, without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

e. This award will not be a small business set-aside.

f. Sealed proposals shall be delivered to the location listed below by 2 PM Local Time (EST) on 11 DECEMBER 2018. Any proposal received after such time and date will be considered a late submission. Late submissions will be treated in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(3). Facsimile or e-mail submissions are not acceptable and will not be considered for award. Proposals shall be valid for a period of at least six (6) months from the closing date listed above.

Offerors shall prominently mark all containers used for delivery of proposals with the following: “SOLICITATION M67854-18-R-5037”

Proposals shall be delivered to the appropriate addresses listed below:

Commander Marine Corps Systems Command 2201A Willis Street Quantico, VA 22134-6050 Attn: Ms. Stefanie Conway 703-432-5776

L-1.2 QUESTIONS

Questions about the solicitation documents are due by 10:00 AM local time on 13 NOVEMBER 2018 to stefanie.conway@usmc.mil in the following table format. Please do not bundle multiple questions into one. Questions received after the above time and date will not be included in the provided response. Additionally, all questions shall be via E-mail, no telephone calls will be accepted. Government responses will be posted on FEDBIZOPPS. Questions may only be sent to the Government’s Contracting Office.

General Issue

Solicitation

SOW

Performance Spec

Other

L-2.0 PREPARATION OF PROPOSALS

This request for proposals is written in the Uniform Contract Format described in Federal Acquisition Requirements (FAR) 15.204-1. The Government advises prospective Offerors to read the terms and conditions of the model contract carefully. Proposals shall be prepared using “Times New Roman” 12 point font style on 8½ x 11 inch white paper. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font style not less than 8 point. Foldouts are not allowed. Margins shall be 1 inch on all sides. All material submitted may be single-spaced. Offerors shall ensure that each page provides identification of the submitting Offeror in the header or footer. Number all pages sequentially.

Offeror shall include one electronic “soft” copy (one copy of the business volume and one copy of the technical volume on separate discs) of the full proposal using the Microsoft Office for Windows suite of applications, submitted on CD-ROM, formatted for a personal computer. Schedules will be in MS Project or compatible format.

NOTE: In the event that there is a conflict between the written hard copy of the proposal and the electronic “soft” copy of the proposal, the written hard copy will take precedence. Such conflicts may be considered as a weakness during the evaluation of the offeror’s proposal.

In addition to technical and business volumes, Offerors shall submit two (2) Production Representative Models (PRM) as part of their proposal. The PRMs will be complete with all required hardware and technical/operating manuals.

Offerors who fail to submit PRMs will be considered as non-compliant with the requirements of this solicitation and will result in the offeror’s proposal being considered non responsive/unacceptable.

Offerors submitting PRMs for consideration do so with the understanding that the Government is not responsible for any loss or damage. Furthermore, offerors will include the necessary documentation to facilitate the return of the PRMs at their cost from the evaluation / Product Qualification Testing (PQT) sites identified in Exhibit B, M-2.

Offerors whose systems are subjected to PQT shall be required to provide technical instruction related to the operation and maintenance of their systems at Aberdeen Test Center, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland (Address provided in section M-4.1). This instruction period will not exceed the time limits illustrated in paragraph 3.11.1 of the Performance Specification (PSPEC). Offerors will not be reimbursed for travel associated to technical instruction or other activities associated to the PQT phase.

L-2.1 ORGANIZATION OF THE PROPOSAL

Each offeror must submit their proposal materials in three-ring binders, in addition to the “soft” copies described in L-2.0. Individual sections shall be removable and replaceable to the volumes. Each volume shall contain a title page, table of contents, acronym list, and list of tables and figures for that volume. Use tab separators to divide required sections within a volume. The title page, table of contents, acronym list, list of tables and figures, and tab separators do not count against the page count. Only material allocated to a specific section shall be in that section. Business and Technical Volumes shall be submitted in separate binders. An original and four (4) copies of the Technical Volume, as well as an original and one (1) copy of the Business Volume, shall be provided.

Offerors shall provide in each volume a Table of Contents and Acronym List. The Technical Volume shall include a Non-Price Factor Cross-Reference Matrix showing the proposal paragraph number where an evaluator will find the detailed discussion of the non-price factors. The Table of Contents, Acronym List and the Non-Price Factor Cross-Reference Matrix will not be included as part of the page count. The following instructions apply to the format:

Proposal Parts/Contents

(not rated) 5 Pages*

*In the event an Offeror provides a proposal that is printed or copied double-sided on paper pursuant to FAR clause 52.204-4, each side of the paper shall represent one page.

L-2.2 CONTENT OF PROPOSAL

The following instructions are provided for the relevant portions of the proposal:

Business Volume:

Letter of Transmittal/Executive Summary: This section shall include the Offeror’s Letter of Transmittal, along with a brief summary of the offeror’s capability to accomplish the requirements of the contract. Offerors are expected to comply with all requirements of the solicitation. Offerors must certify that their respective offer provided in response to solicitation M67854-18-R-5037 does not take any exception to, deviate from, or otherwise request a waiver for any of the requirements delineated in solicitation M67854-18-R-5037. Any exceptions, deviations, and/or waivers shall render the Offeror’s proposal unacceptable to the Government.

The Government considers any exception or deviation to any term, condition or requirement of the solicitation to be a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. Any exceptions, deviations, and/or waivers taken to any aspect of the RFP shall be identified in the Executive Summary.

NOTE: On the first page of the Business Volume, the Offeror shall certify that the proposal has been prepared completely consistent with the terms and conditions of the solicitation. This part shall also include the offeror’s cognizant DCMA, DCAA, and DFAS payment office.

Part I - SF33 and Model Contract. This part shall include a completed, signed original copy of the entire solicitation (Sections A through K), with all appropriate “fill-ins” completed. This volume shall include all proposed pricing and include one signed and completed copy of the Standard Form 33, acknowledging any solicitation amendments, signed by a person authorized to enter into the proposed contract on behalf of the offeror. The offerors shall clearly indicate the total price to the Government. All dollar amounts provided in a completed Section B shall be rounded to the nearest dollar.

For bundled costs, the phrase “Not Separately Priced” (NSP) shall be indicated for the corresponding CLIN/SLIN. The term “N/A” or Not Applicable shall only be used when the described items in the applicable CLIN/SLIN are NOT being provided.

Under Section B, a step-ladder pricing structure is preferred; because price breaks may vary by contractor, each Offeror shall have no more than four price breaks (discounts). However, the minimum quantity for the 1st range must be 1 and the maximum quantity for the last range must be the maximum quantity specified for each CLIN. Offerors shall not complete the Unit Price and Max Amount entry located at the top of the stepladder CLINs for CLINs where stepladder pricing is proposed.

Price Inconsistencies. The Government assumes a proposal represents the offeror’s best efforts to respond to the solicitation. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and price, should be explained in the proposal. Any significant inconsistencies, if unexplained, raise a fundamental issue of the offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of work required and financial ability to perform the contract. This may result in the proposal being determined to be unacceptable.

Part II – Past Performance (Factor 3). This part shall contain relevant past performance by identifying a minimum of three (3) of its most relevant contracts within the past three years. Offerors should provide a detailed explanation of the relevance of the listed contracts to the requirements of the solicitation. Relevance is defined as contracts that are similar in size, scope, complexity, and cost/price. Contracts valued between $3M and $9M shall be considered more relevant than lesser valued contracts. Offerors shall address how the listed contracts are similar to the requirements in this solicitation.

Ensure that accurate and concise information is provided for each contract including:

· Title of Contract, Contract Number, and Sponsoring Organization;

· Name, mailing address, telephone and email address for the Technical POC or COR and Contracting Officer;

· Type of Contract, Value, Award and Completion Dates;

· Brief description of the services performed, problems identified and corrective action taken, awards/recognition received; and

· Cure/Show Cause notices received, and reasons.

Offerors are advised that the Government may also use and evaluate independently obtained past performance data from other sources such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs).

For each contract reference listed, the Offeror shall provide a PPQ (found at the end of Section L). The Offeror shall send out and track the completion of the PPQs. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires must be submitted directly from the Offeror's Government/ Commercial Points of Contact (POCs) to the Government.

The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the Offeror.

Part III – Small Business Participation (Factor 4). The cover page for the Offeror’s Small Business Participation volume shall summarize the Offeror’s SB Participation goals and SB Subcontracting percentage goals for the total requirement using the below format:

Small Business Participation Summary Table

SB Participation Plan

Total

All Offerors regardless of size shall submit a Small Business Participation Plan presenting percentages in terms of total dollars of work for each SB category, divided by the total contract value.

The Offeror shall identify the extent and nature of participation of SB, WOSBs, HUBZone SBs, and SDVOSBs in the performance of the proposed contract. Participation includes subcontractors or material suppliers to the prime contractor or subcontractors. Offerors shall include in the percentages their own participation as an SB, WOSB, HUB Zone SB or SDVOSB.

The plan shall include:

a. The name and DUNS number (or CAGE code) of each of the firm(s) included in the plan;

b. A copy of the System for Award Management (SAM) profile for each of the firm(s) included in the plan;

c. Discussion of the specific components to be produced or services to be performed by each firm;

d. Identification of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code (appropriate to the principal nature of the planned subcontract) supporting each firm’s size status;

e. The estimated total dollar value subcontracted to each firm;

f. The estimated total dollar value subcontracted to each SB category;

g. The percentage of total contract value subcontracted to each firm; and

h. The percentage of total contract value subcontracted to each SB category.

i. Evidence of any enforceable commitments in place between the Offeror and the participating small businesses. Each participation percentage shall be accompanied by detailed supporting documentation regarding the individual commitments.

j. If applicable, for each category in which the Offeror’s SB Participation Plan contains goals below those described below, a detailed explanation as to why.

Participation Goals: The Government’s Participation goals for this acquisition are:

Small Business Total: 32.5%

As part of the 32.5% small business goals, the following are participation goals for socio- and economically disadvantaged small businesses and HUB Zones:

Small Disadvantaged Business: 12.5% Women-Owned Small Business: 8.5% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business: 8.0% HUB Zone Small Business: 3.5%

Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Each Large Business Offeror shall provide its Small Business Subcontracting Plan conforming to the requirements of FAR 19.7 and DFARS 219.7. Prior to contract award, the PCO will review and approve the SB Subcontracting Plan of the successful Offeror. See FAR 19.702(a)(1) statutory requirements, regarding failure of the apparent successful Offeror to negotiate and submit a SB Subcontracting Plan or submit a Comprehensive SB Subcontracting Plan acceptable to the Contracting Officer. If the successful Offeror is a Large Business, the approved Subcontracting Plan becomes part of the resultant contract.

Technical Volume:

Part IV. Technical. This part shall explain the Offeror's ability to meet or exceed the requirements delineated in the PSPEC and SOW. The volume shall not include any cost/pricing data. The Technical Volume shall include the Cross–Reference Matrix showing the proposal paragraph number where an evaluator will find the detailed discussion of the requirements listed in the PSPEC and SOW. The Offeror shall provide data, if available, or otherwise provide analysis that demonstrates the Offeror's approach meets or exceeds the requirements of the PSPEC. The Offeror shall provide data to substantiate their product meets or exceeds the requirements of the PSPEC, SOW and that data shall be provided within the prescribed page count for the technical volume. It is permissible to submit the substantiating data on a CD-ROM and it will not be counted against the page limitations set forth in Section L;

However, Offerors shall specify if any substantiating data is contained within the CD-ROM with each Offeror’s proposal. Substantiating data is limited to technical drawings, photographs, test reports, and product specification sheets.

The Offeror shall identify any “value-added” features that will contribute to the overall accomplishment of the PWPS program. These elements shall be quantified from the standpoint of improvements to performance, cost reduction, innovative business strategies, or other measures the Offeror believes will contribute to program execution.

Operational Effectiveness (Factor 1)

Operational Effectiveness: The Offeror's proposal shall describe the approach to accomplish the stated technical (e.g. independent test data if available), logistical, and management requirements in this RFP and the process for how the Offeror will furnish the effort to achieve program objectives and work content as stated in the SOW and PSPEC. The Offeror shall describe its approach to meet or exceed all the requirements delineated in the PSEC and SOW. The proposal shall clearly identify how it will meet the requirements for Provisioning and Technical Publications in the SOW paragraphs 5.3 and 5.6, and the requirements in the PSPEC. The Technical Manual development and provisioning are most important in the SOW and will have a greater impact on the Operational Effectiveness rating than other SOW requirements.

Production Capability (Factor 2)

Production Capability: The Offeror’s proposal shall describe their ability (facilities, personnel, etc.) to produce and deliver all contract deliverables within 15 months after receipt of order.

The technical volume shall not include any cost/pricing data.

L-3.0 INTENT TO INCORPORATE CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSAL

All or part of the successful offeror’s proposal may be incorporated in any contract resulting from this solicitation. Nothing contained in the successful offeror’s proposal shall constitute a waiver to any requirement of the contract. In the event of any conflict between the successful offeror’s proposal and other requirements of the contract, the conflict shall be resolved in favor of the contract requirements.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 Basis of Award

The Government intends to make award on a best value basis using trade-offs. The following non-price factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1 –Operational Effectiveness Factor 2 –Production Capability Factor 3 - Past Performance Factor 4- Small Business Participation

Operational Effectiveness shall be more important than Production Capability. Production Capability shall be more important than Past Performance. Past Performance shall be more important than Small Business Participation. The non-price factors when combined are significantly more important than price.

As prescribed by 52.215-1, the Government may award on the basis of initial offers received, without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a business and technical standpoint.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. 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 number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

M-1.1 Evaluation Procedures. Should be Small Business Set-Aside Should be Small Business Set-Aside

The Business Volume will be evaluated separately from the Technical Volume. Relevant information directly impacting risk in either the Technical or Business Volumes will be exchanged between panels. Operational Effectiveness and Production Capability will be evaluated using the Combined Technical/Risk Rating table below.

The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government's requirement with respect to the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies to determine the technical rating.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Table

A rating of Unacceptable in any evaluated non-price factor will render the proposal unacceptable. Unacceptable proposals are ineligible for award without discussions.

Past Performance Rating. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation rating. The first (relevancy) will be 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 second (confidence) past performance evaluation will be to determine how well the offeror performed on those contracts. These Past Performance ratings are listed in the following tables:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Performance Confidence Assessments

M-2.0 Evaluation Factors.

1. Operational Effectiveness – More Importance than Factor 2; And More Important than Factors 3 & 4. (As described in the proposal and demonstrated during PQT) Sub-Factors – Tech Manual Development & Provisioning; Potable Water Quality & Production; Water Quality Assurance; Intake/Pump Head & Discharge Hoses; Manual Portability; Power Requirements; Environmental Conditions; Logistics and Readiness Requirements. All subfactors are equal.

1. Production Capability – More Importance than Factor 3 & 4.

1. Past Performance - Less Important than Factors 1 & 2

1. Small Business Participation- Less Important Than Factors 1, 2, & 3

1. Price - Not Rated, but price will be evaluated

M-2.1 Factor 1- Operational Effectiveness. The Government will assess the feasibility and viability of the Offeror's proposed technical, logistical, and management approach to satisfy the requirements set forth in the PSPEC and the SOW. The ability to exceed threshold or meet objective values of the following are most important in the PSPEC and will have a greater impact on the overall rating than other PSPEC requirements. Technical Volume will be evaluated to establish Competitive Range. Then PQT will be used to substantiate the technical factor under the following subfactors that are of equal value listed below:

· Tech Manual Development & Provisioning

· Potable Water Quality & Production

· Water Quality Assurance

· Intake, Pump Head & Discharge Hoses

· Manual Portability

· Power Requirements

· Environmental Conditions

· Logistics & Readiness Requirements

The Government intends to establish a competitive range. Offerors whose evaluated proposals are rated the highest will then be subjected to PQT as part of source selection to verify performance claims of their PRMs.

Evaluations and PQT will be conducted at the following locations:

Marine Corps Systems Command 2200 Lester St.

Quantico, VA 22134 Aberdeen Test Center 6421 Narrows Rd.

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005 Naval Facilities Command Expeditionary Warfare Center 1100 23rd Ave.

Port Hueneme, CA 93043

M-2.2 Factor 2- Production Capability. The Government will assess the Offeror’s ability to produce and deliver all contract deliverables within 15 months after receipt of order.

M-2.3 Factor 3- Past Performance. Offerors will be evaluated based upon their ability to substantiate credible examples of past performance and shall be inclusive of delivery schedule compliance, product quality, and overall customer satisfaction. The Government will use the tables above to assign a relevancy rating as well as a confidence assessment. While each contract reference will be assigned a relevancy rating, there will only be a single overall confidence assessment assigned for each offeror.

Past performance will be evaluated for relevancy based on the Offeror’s experience performing tasks similar in size, scope, and/or complexity. Performance within the past three years shall also be evaluated to determine the level of risk posed on the basis of customer satisfaction with the Offeror’s prior performance. The past performance evaluation is separate from the responsibility determination required by FAR Subpart 9.1.

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 may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, as set forth in FAR 15.306(a)(2)(iv). In the event an offeror does not have past performance available, or if the past performance provided by the offeror is not capable of receiving a relevancy rating based on the table above, that particular past performance will received a confidence rating of “Unknown Confidence (Neutral).”

Past Performance Information Retrieval Systems (PPIRS) will be accessed in accordance with NMCARS Section 5215.305(a)(2).

M-2.4 Small Business Participation- Factor 4. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan against the Small Business goals in Section L as follows:

1. Proposals meeting or exceeding the percentage goals in Section L-2.2, Part III will receive an acceptable rating.

1. Proposals not meeting or exceeding the goals stated in Section L-2.2, Part III will receive an unacceptable rating unless the proposal explains why and describes what the Offeror will do to increase the percentages for performance under contract. Justifications adequately describing valid actions toward increasing percentage goals will receive an acceptable rating.

Small Business Participation Plan Ratings

M-2.5 Price. Factor 5. Price will be evaluated, but not rated. The Government will calculate an "Evaluated Price to the Government" for each Offeror's proposal by adding together the following:

The Government will establish a "Total Evaluated Price to the Government" for each offeror by multiplying the offeror's proposed price for each priced CLIN/SLIN listed in Section B and random evaluation quantities used for each CLIN; the sum of these will determine the total evaluated price to the Government.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf