Sections L and M.pdf

Sections L and M

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Oferrors

Offerors are responsible for submitting complete, accurate, and timely quotations in accordance with the instructions below.

The Government is not responsible for evaluating incomplete quotations. The Contracting Officer may, at his or her discretion, seek clarification of a quotation but is not required to do so.

L.1 - Solicitation Overview

This is a Request for Quotation (RFQ) for non-commercial small boat repair services at or in support of Naval Station Rota, Spain. This acquisition is conducted using Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) under FAR Part 13 (Revolutionary FAR Overhaul).

A separate written solicitation will NOT be issued. This RFQ constitutes the complete solicitation. Offerors must submit a complete quotation in accordance with this document

L.2 - Submission Instructions

Element Requirement

Submission Method Email to: nelson.j.arias.civ@us.navy.mil Subject line: N6817126QT005 — [Offeror Name] — Quotation Submission.

Submission Deadline As detailed on SAM.gov at 10:00 Local Spain Time / CET. Late quotations may be considered at the Contracting Officer’s discretion under FAR 13.106-2.

File Format PDF preferred. Excel accepted for Price Schedule. All files must be clearly labeled with solicitation number and volume.

Questions Written questions due by two days prior to closing. Submit to Contracting Officer’s email above. Questions and responses will be issued by amendment on SAM.gov.

SAM.gov Registration Offerors MUST be registered and active in SAM.gov (www.sam.gov) prior to award. Confirm CAGE code and NAICS in registration.

Volume Structure Quotation must include TWO volumes: Volume I — Past Performance, and Volume II — Price.

See L.3 and L.4 below.

L.3 - Volume I — Past Performance Submission Requirements

PURPOSE: Volume I is the sole technical factor for this acquisition. The Government will not evaluate a technical approach, management plan, or staffing plan. Evaluation is limited to PAST PERFORMANCE and PRICE. Offerors should focus their Volume I submission on demonstrating relevant, verifiable experience performing comparable small boat or vessel repair work.

L.3.1 - Number of Relevant Contracts

Offerors shall submit information for a

MINIMUM of one (1) and MAXIMUM of five (5) relevant contracts or orders performed within the past three (3) years from the date of this solicitation. Contracts completed more than three years ago will not be evaluated unless no more recent work exists, in which case the Offeror should explain the gap.

At least one (1) submitted contract should demonstrate experience with:

• Small boat, small craft, or vessel repair (preferred)

◦ Marine systems (propulsion, electrical, hull, navigation, or habitability)

◦ Work performed for a government or military customer (preferred but not required)

L.3.2 Required Information Per Contract

For EACH submitted past performance reference, Offerors shall provide ALL of the following:

# Data Element Instructions

1 Contract / Order Number Full contract or order number (e.g., N68171-22-C-XXXX or commercial PO number). If commercial, provide customer purchase order or agreement reference.

2 Contracting Agency / Customer

Name of the contracting agency, company, or organization that awarded the contract.

3 Contract Title / Description Brief title and description of the work performed. Include type of vessel(s) repaired, systems addressed, and scope of repair.

4 Contract Value Total contract value (base and all options exercised). If the contract was modified, provide original and final values.

5 Period of Performance Start date and completion date (Month/Year to Month/Year).

6 Place of Performance Location where work was performed (city, country). Note if work was performed at an overseas or international location.

7 Prime or Subcontractor Role Indicate whether the Offeror performed as the prime contractor or as a subcontractor. If subcontractor, identify the prime and describe the Offeror's specific scope.

8 Contracting Officer / Customer POC

Name, title, phone number, and email address of the government or customer point of contact who can verify performance. Provide current contact information

— the Government WILL contact references.

9 Self-Assessment of Relevancy

In one to three sentences, explain why this contract is relevant to the current requirement (see Relevancy definitions in Section M).

10 Problems Encountered Identify any significant problems encountered during performance (cost growth, schedule delays, quality issues) and describe the corrective actions taken.

Omitting known problems that are later identified by the reference may adversely affect evaluation.

The Government reserves the right to contact references directly, review past contract data from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and any other available source of past performance information, regardless of whether the Offeror submits a PPQ.

L.3.4 New Businesses / No Relevant Past Performance

Offerors with no relevant past performance — including newly formed businesses, joint ventures, or businesses that have not previously performed similar work — must affirmatively state this in Volume I. Such Offerors will receive a rating of

"Unknown Confidence", which is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably in the trade-off evaluation. An Unknown Confidence rating does not disqualify an Offeror from award consideration.

Offerors with limited past performance may supplement Volume I with information on the experience of key personnel, parent companies, subcontractors, or teaming partners who will perform the work.

L.4 Volume II — Price Quotation Requirements

L.4.1 Price Schedule

Offerors shall complete the Government-provided Price Schedule through the SF1449 in its entirety. Failure to complete all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) may render the quotation ineligible for award.

The Price Schedule includes:

• One total price for all inspection services covering one year.

• Unit prices for all labor categories, material categories, and other direct costs as specified will be included in the Offeror’s price breakdown.

L.4.2 Price Narrative (Optional but Encouraged)

Offerors may include a brief price narrative (not to exceed two pages) explaining the basis for their pricing. This may include:

• Explanation of labor rates (Union minimums, health and welfare benefits, profit, G&A)

• Description of any subcontractor costs and how they were estimated

• Identification of any assumptions or exclusions that affect pricing

• Any volume discounts or favorable pricing terms offered

Note regarding IVA (Spanish VAT): Prices must be quoted EXCLUSIVE of Spanish IVA. The U.S. Government is exempt from IVA under DFARS 252.229-7001. Do not include IVA in your quoted price. Prices inclusive of IVA will be adjusted prior to evaluation.

SECTION M Basis for Award — Evaluation Criteria

M.1 Evaluation Authority and Approach

The Government will award a Purchase Order to the responsible Offeror whose quotation is most advantageous to the Government. Award will be made based on a trade-off between Past Performance (more important) and Price (less important). The Government may award to an Offeror other than the lowest-priced Offeror if a superior past performance record justifies the additional cost. Conversely, a price premium for marginally better past performance may not represent best value.

Factor Name Relative Importance Evaluation Method

1 Past Performance MORE IMPORTANT Relevancy Assessment + Confidence Rating (simplified CPARS-aligned)

2 Price / Total Evaluated Price LESS IMPORTANT Total Evaluated Price; Price Reasonableness per FAR 13.106-3

M.2 Factor 1 — Past Performance Evaluation

M.2.1 Overview

Past Performance will be evaluated in two steps: (1) a Relevancy Assessment for each submitted contract, and (2) an overall Confidence Rating based on the totality of relevant past performance information available to the Government.

The Government will consider past performance information submitted by the Offeror (Volume I) and any information independently obtained from CPARS, FAPIIS, SAM.gov exclusions, and direct reference contacts. The Government is not limited to information submitted by the Offeror.

M.2.2 Step 1 — Relevancy Assessment

Each submitted past contract will be assigned one of the following Relevancy ratings. Relevancy reflects the similarity of the past work to the current requirement in terms of scope, complexity, and magnitude. More relevant contracts carry greater weight in the Confidence Rating determination.

Relevancy Definition Small Boat Repair Examples

Very Relevant Scope, magnitude, and complexity closely match this requirement

Direct repair of Navy/military small craft (RHIBs, utility boats, patrol craft, harbor boats) of similar size and systems; similar contract value; similar PoP environment (overseas or comparable complexity)

Relevant Scope, magnitude, and/or complexity are similar but not identical

Repair of comparable commercial small vessels (marine patrol boats, pilot boats, small ferries); DoD vessel repair of different craft type; similar value range; repair performed in Europe or NATO environment

Somewhat Relevant

Some aspects of the work are similar but meaningful differences exist

Larger vessel maintenance with similar trades (engine, hull, electrical); small boat repair of significantly smaller value or different system types; land-based equipment maintenance with overlapping trades

Not Relevant Little or no similarity to the required work

Unrelated construction or maintenance work; no marine/vessel component; contracts of significantly different scope or value that provide no meaningful comparison

Contracts rated 'Not Relevant' will not contribute to the Confidence Rating. Contracts rated 'Very Relevant' or 'Relevant' will carry the greatest weight. The Government will consider the relevancy of the Offeror’s most recent and most similar work as most probative of likely future performance.

M.2.3 Step 2 — Confidence Rating

Based on all relevant past performance information reviewed (including CPARS, direct reference contacts, and any other available information), the Contracting Officer will assign ONE of the following overall Confidence Ratings:

Rating Confidence Level Definition

Substantial Confidence

High Based on the Offeror's recent and relevant record, the Government has high confidence the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Moderate Based on the Offeror's recent and relevant record, the Government has reasonable confidence the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Low Based on the Offeror's recent and relevant record, the Government has low confidence the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort without significant risk.

No Confidence Very Low Based on the Offeror's recent and relevant record, the Government has very low or no confidence the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence

Neutral The Offeror has no relevant past performance history, or the available information is insufficient to make a meaningful assessment.

M.2.4 Special Situations

Predecessor Companies / Parent Companies:

An Offeror that has recently been formed through reorganization, merger, or acquisition may submit past performance of the predecessor company or the parent company, provided it can demonstrate that the relevant personnel, resources, and capabilities have been retained. The Government will evaluate such submissions on a case-by-case basis.

Subcontractor / Teaming Partner Past Performance:

Offerors may include past performance of key subcontractors or teaming partners who will perform a significant portion of the work. Such submissions should identify the subcontractor's specific role in the current acquisition. The Contracting Officer will weigh subcontractor past performance in proportion to the share of work they will perform.

Adverse Past Performance Information:

If the Government identifies adverse past performance information from any source (not just information submitted by the Offeror), the Offeror will be given an opportunity to address such information prior to award. The Contracting Officer will provide a brief description of the adverse information and allow the Offeror a reasonable time to respond.

M.3 Factor 2 — Price Evaluation

M.3.1 Total Evaluated Price

The Government will evaluate price by calculating the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each Offeror. The TEP is the sum of all individuals prices for the total CLIN as priced in the Government Price Schedule in the solicitation.

M.3.2 Price Reasonableness

The Contracting Officer will determine whether the quoted price is fair and reasonable per FAR 13.106-3. One or more of the following techniques will be used:

• Comparison of quotes received (primary method when adequate competition exists)

• Comparison with the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) on file

• Comparison with prices paid on prior similar contracts at NAVSTA Rota

• Review of published labor rates, material costs, and market data for small boat repair in Spain

• Analysis of the Offeror's price breakdown or narrative (if submitted)

M.3.3 IVA / Tax Adjustment

Prices quoted inclusive of Spanish IVA will be adjusted by the Government to remove IVA prior to price evaluation. Offerors are reminded that the U.S. Government is exempt from Spanish IVA for official purchases under DFARS 252.229-7001.

Offerors should price exclusive of IVA.

M.4 Best Value Trade-Off Determination

M.4.1 Trade-Off Methodology

Past Performance is more important than Price. This means the Government may pay a price premium for an Offeror with a significantly better past performance record if that premium is warranted by the reduced risk of successful performance.

However, the price difference between Offerors will be considered in proportion to the performance difference. A marginal improvement in past performance confidence does not justify a significant price premium.

The trade-off will be documented by the Contracting Officer in a written Source Selection Decision (or Award Determination) that addresses:

• The Confidence Rating and supporting rationale for each Offer evaluated

• The Total Evaluated Price for each Offeror

• A specific comparison of the rated Offerors identifying the performance and price differences

• The specific trade-off rationale explaining why the selected Offeror represents the best value

• Why any price premium paid (if applicable) is justified by the performance difference

M.4.2 Trade-Off Scenarios — Illustrative Guidance

Past Performance Price Position Likely Award Outcome

Substantial Confidence Lowest Price Award to this Offeor — best value is clear

Substantial Confidence Not Lowest Price Strong case for award if price premium is justified by superior past performance; KO must document trade-off rationale

Satisfactory Confidence Lowest Price Award likely if technically acceptable; KO should verify price reasonableness

Satisfactory Confidence Not Lowest Price KO must determine whether price premium is worth the marginal past performance advantage over lower-priced Offeror; document trade-off

Limited Confidence Lowest Price KO should evaluate risk carefully; low price may not offset performance risk; consider whether additional information is needed

Limited Confidence Not Lowest Price Unlikely to represent best value; KO should document rationale if award is considered

No Confidence / Unknown

Any Price Do not award without additional past performance information or remediation; document rationale fully if proceeding

M.4.3 Equal Past Performance Confidence

When two or more Offerors have equivalent Confidence Ratings (e.g., both rated Satisfactory Confidence), the Government will award to the Offeror with the lower Total Evaluated Price, provided the price is determined fair and reasonable.

M.4.4 Only One Offeror Receives a Meaningful Past Performance Rating

If only one Offeror has relevant and verifiable past performance and receives a Confidence Rating above Unknown, the Government may award to that Offeror even if its price is not the lowest, provided the price is reasonable and the performance advantage justifies the premium.

M.5 Responsibility Determination

Prior to award, the Contracting Officer will make an affirmative determination of responsibility for the selected Offeror per FAR 9.103. The Offeror must meet all general standards of responsibility in FAR 9.104-1, including:

• Adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or ability to obtain them

• Ability to comply with the required delivery schedule

• A satisfactory performance record (consistent with the past performance evaluation above)

• A satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics (FAPIIS check; SAM.gov exclusions check)

• The necessary organization, experience, operational controls, and technical skills

• The necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities

• Active and current SAM.gov registration with no active exclusions

The Contracting Officer may additionally verify:

• Legal authorization to perform work in Spain (DFARS 252.225-7042)

• Compliance with applicable Spanish labor law and Convenio Colectivo obligations

• Ability to perform invoicing and comply with contract administration requirements

M.6 Award Without Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions. Offerors should submit their most favorable terms in their initial quotation. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to seek clarifications of apparent clerical errors or ambiguities in any quotation. Clarifications are not discussions and do not provide an opportunity to revise the quotation.

M.7 Evaluation Notice to Offerors

By submitting a quotation, the Offeror:

• Acknowledges that evaluation will be conducted on the basis of Past Performance and Price as described in this Section M

• Consents to Government contact with all references identified in Volume I

• Confirms that the past performance information submitted is accurate and complete to the best of the Offeror's knowledge

• Acknowledges that adverse past performance information identified by the Government from any source may be considered

• Understands that the Government may award without discussions and should submit its best terms initially

• Confirms that pricing is exclusive of Spanish IVA in compliance with DFARS 252.229-7001

(End of Section L & Section M)