Sections L and M_N6660425Q0168.pdf

SECTION L- INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

1.1 General Information

(1) All questions concerning this procurement, either technical or contractual, must be submitted via email. No direct discussion between the technical representative and prospective contract will be conducted.

It is the Offeror’s responsibility to submit its complete and entire proposal no later than the closing date and time identified in the solicitation.

1.2 Submission Requirements

(1) 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.

Offeror’s shall provide information and documentation in detail to clearly identify its overall qualifications.

(2) Proposals shall be submitted via email to kevin.e.silva2.civ@us.navy.mil . Offeror’s 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 Offeror ineligible for award.

(3) Offeror’s shall include the following in the proposals:

(i) Price Proposal and Technical Proposal.

(ii) Insert to Section B: CLIN dollar amounts

1.3 Proposal Format

(1) The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in the English language.

(2) Proposals and all attachments shall be readable by Microsoft Office or Adobe Acrobat.

(3) Offerors are required to submit their proposals as follows:

Section Title

Pass/Fail Requirements

Technical Proposal

Past Performance

Price

(4) Offeror’s shall provide a letter of transmittal/cover letter with the following information:

(a) Solicitation number;

(b) The name, address, email address, telephone numbers, Cage Code, DUNS Number, and

Tax Identification Number (TIN) of the Offeror;

file:///C:/Users/stephanie.a.smyth/Documents/contracts/SAPS/FY19/191684%20Super%20SAP/191684/via mailto:stephanie.a.smyth@navy.mil

(c) A statement specifying unconditional acceptance of all terms and conditions;

(d) A statement that the proposal is valid through 180 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of proposals;

(e) 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;

(5) Offeror’s 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.

2.1 Plan for Obtaining Personnel Clearances

The offeror shall provide, a plan for obtaining personnel clearances within 30 days of the start of the period of performance at the required level specified in the DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification attached to this solicitation. The plan shall include confirmation of existing personnel clearances, detail the offeror’s process for obtaining new clearances to perform the full requirement by the time full operational tempo is reached within 30 days of the period of performance start date, and outline the schedule for obtaining any required new clearances during the life of the contract..

The Government will evaluate the plan for obtaining personnel security clearances within 30 days of the start of the period of performance at the required level as specified in the DD254, including confirmation of existing clearances, details of the Offeror’s process for obtaining new clearances, and the schedule for obtaining any required new personnel security clearances during the life of the contract.

2.2 Facility Clearance

Performance under this task order requires that the offeror hold a facility clearance as specified in the DD Form 254, attached to this solicitation, at the time of proposal submission. As such, the offeror shall provide CAGE codes and addresses for all locations where work will be performed that require classified facilities capabilities as defined in the

DD Form 254 and associated references.

The Government will verify whether the offeror’s facility clearance meets the levels specified in the DD Form 254 using Government sources of information for all CAGE codes provided. The Government will confirm the offeror’s facility clearance(s) using the Facility Clearance Databases.

3.0 NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(I) Technical Capability:

(i) Technical Approach

(a) Submit a Personnel Plan to accomplish all of the Statement of Work tasking. Page limitation for proposal is not to exceed fifteen (10) pages.

(ii) Personnel

Staffing Plan. Offeror shall provide a staffing plan using the format provided in Attachment 3 – Staffing

Plan. Offeror shall complete all of the information requested within the provided template. Offeror shall include all proposed personnel, including those of its subcontractors, necessary to perform all aspects of the

PWS/SOW. Offeror shall propose staffing in accordance with the labor hours identified in Section B. Offeror shall propose staffing in accordance with Attachment 1 – Personnel Qualifications.

Offeror shall preface the names of contingent hires with “Contingent -”; for example, “Contingent – Jane

Doe.” Offeror shall preface the names of key personnel with “Key –“; for example, “Key – Jane Doe.”

Offeror shall use “TBD” for non-key positions that do not have identified personnel. “TBD” may also be used for labor hours associated with surge or special study CLINs/SLINs, if such CLINs/SLINs are included in

Section B.

Offeror shall provide a mapping of any company-specific labor categories it, or its subcontractors, proposes in the staffing plan to the corresponding Government Standard eCRAFT Labor Categories. Unless specified already by the Government, Offeror shall propose Standard eCRAFT Labor Categories based on the descriptions listed at: http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Warfare-Centers/NUWC-

Newport/Partnerships/Commercial-Contracts/Labor-Categories/. For labor categories that provide for various levels (I, II, III, IV), Offeror shall select the level that best matches the proposed individual and company-specific labor category. For Service Contract Act (SCA) labor categories (if applicable), Offerors may propose an SCA labor category listed in the SCA Directory of Occupations at:

http://www.dol.gov/whd/govcontracts/sca.htm.

Offeror shall propose a staffing plan in the technical volume that fully aligns with the staffing included in the price proposal. Discrepancies between the proposed staffing identified in the technical and price proposal may result in an identification of risk, a lowering of the adjectival rating in the technical proposal, and/or an upward adjustment to the proposed price.

Key Personnel. Offeror shall provide one resume for each individual proposed to fulfill the positions identified as key personnel in accordance with Attachment 1 – Personnel Qualifications. All key personnel positions shall identify a current employee or contingent hire to fulfil the role. Each resume shall demonstrate the key personnel’s qualifications to complete the tasking for which person has been proposed to perform.

Offeror shall submit a current “letter of intent” (with salary information redacted) with all resumes supplied for contingent key personnel hires. The letter of intent does not count against page limitations and must be signed by the contingent hire employee and the Offeror.

Key personnel resumes shall include the following information:

Name

Key personnel position

Security clearance level

Citizenship

Summary indicating how personnel qualifications are met (e.g., years of relevant experience)

Chronology of education, training, and degrees/certifications held

Chronology of work experience with emphasis on PWS/SOW related experience

Key personnel are deemed essential to the performance of this effort and cannot be replaced without prior

Government approval in accordance with C-237-H002 SUBSTITUTION OF KEY PERSONNEL (OCT

2018). The qualifications listed in each individual proposed key personnel resume, not the specific individual, are the materially relevant aspects of the proposed key personnel partially forming the basis of award. Therefore, even if a proposed key personnel becomes unavailable to the Offeror between proposal submission and award, the Government will evaluate and make its award decision based on the qualifications listed on the proposed resume(s). When the Government awards a task order under those circumstances, the Government will require the awardee to use the qualifications listed on the relevant proposed key personnel resume as the basis for replacing the individual under C-237-H002

SUBSTITUTION OF KEY PERSONNEL (OCT 2018)during task order performance. The Offeror shall make no substitution of key personnel without prior notification to and concurrence of the Contracting

Officer.

http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Warfare-Centers/NUWC-Newport/Partnerships/Commercial-Contracts/Labor-Categories/ http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Warfare-Centers/NUWC-Newport/Partnerships/Commercial-Contracts/Labor-Categories/ http://www.dol.gov/whd/govcontracts/sca.htm

(II) Past Performance

Offeror shall provide all past performance information in accordance with Attachment 2 – Past

Performance Reference. Offeror shall provide three past performance references, if available, which shall reflect recent experience performed within the last three years of the solicitation release date and that demonstrates experience relevant to the solicitation’s PWS/SOW. In addition to these three past performance references, Offeror shall submit one additional past performance reference for each subcontractor proposed to perform more than 10% of the total labor hours, if available. Offeror shall describe how the past performance references are relevant including details about how it is similar in scope and complexity to this solicitation’s PWS/SOW.

(III) Price.

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

Item Number (CLIN 0001, CLIN 0002 option, CLIN 0003 option, CLIN 0004 option, and CLIN 0005 option) as well as a cumulative Total Firm Fixed Price for all CLINs.

(End of provision)

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-price) features of proposals with the difference in the price to the Government.

(b) The Government intends to award a contract without discussions (as outlined in FAR 12.203 Procedures for solicitation, evaluation, and award and FAR 12.6 Streamlined Procedures for Evaluation and Solicitation for

Commercial Products and Commercial Services . However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions to permit Offerors to revise their proposals.

1.2 Relative Importance

The following table sets forth all factors and subfactors that will be considered for award.

FACTORS

1.) Pass/Fail

2.) Technical Capability

3.) Past Performance

4.) Price

The relative importance of factors is as follows: Only offerors with a Pass for the Pass/Fail requirements will be considered in the tradeoff. Pass Fail requirements will not be part of the tradeoff analysis. The subfactors of the

Technical Capability Factor are listed in descending order of importance. Technical Capability and Past

Performance are of equal importance. All evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are more important than Price. Price 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 NON-PRICE FACTORS

The Government will evaluate offers and assign one of the adjectival ratings indicated in paragraph 5.0 of this provision for each of the following non-price factors.

2.1 Technical Capability (FACTOR 1)

2.1.1 Technical Approach (SUBFACTOR 1)

The Government will evaluate the proposal to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the issue(s), requirement(s), proposed industrial facility details, personnel required, and the approach to handling each

SOW task per the applicable documents and Government Furnished Information.

2.1.2 Personnel Mix (SUBFACTOR 2)

The Government will evaluate the overall mix of personnel, including the explanation of how the mix of personnel correlates to the Statement of Work (SOW), to determine how well the proposed team is suited to perform all aspects of the SOW.

2.1.2.2 Key Personnel

(a) The Government will evaluate the merits of Key Personnel as indicated in the resume against the SOW tasks to which the individual(s) is/are assigned in the proposal and the typical qualifications of the selected labor category, including level (i.e. I, II, III, IV), in terms of education and experience (see http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/WarfareCenters/NUWCNewport/Partnerships/CommercialC ontract/LaborCategories.aspx). A proposal that includes more Key Personnel of value may be determined to have greater strength.

(b) If any proposed Key Personnel are not currently employees of the offeror or proposed subcontractor offeror, or who are proposed to permanently relocate, the Government will verify that assigned Letters of Intent are provided.

3.0 Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the past performance references for recency, relevancy and quality of performance.

Recent performance includes efforts performed within the past three calendar years from solicitation release date.

Relevant performance includes efforts that are of similar scope and complexity as identified in the PWS/SOW. Past performance references that reflect projects with a similar scope and complexity to efforts described in this solicitation will be considered to have greater importance in the evaluation of this factor. The Government will evaluate 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 assignment of a performance confidence assessment rating.

The Government reserves its right to collect and use information from sources other than those identified in the proposal to evaluate past performance. This may include, but not limited to, Federal, State, and local Government agencies, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Better Business Bureaus, published media and electronic databases, and/or personal knowledge. The Government may contact past or current customers to collect additional information for use in evaluating past performance. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact and to contact other references than those provided in the proposal. The

Government reserves the right to not perform a past performance evaluation on any Offeror that is assigned an

“Unacceptable” adjectival rating under Factor 1 - Technical.

Adjectival Rating Description. The Government will assign adjectival ratings for Factor 2 in accordance with the following information. For recency, each past performance reference will be assigned a rating of “Recent” or “Not

Recent” as determined by whether the effort was performed within the past three calendar years from solicitation release date. For relevancy, each past performance reference will be assigned a rating in accordance with the below table.

Adjectival Ratings 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.

http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/WarfareCenters/NUWCNewport/Partnerships/CommercialContract/LaborCategories.aspx http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/WarfareCenters/NUWCNewport/Partnerships/CommercialContract/LaborCategories.aspx

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.

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 a performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; rather, an overall performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. 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 Government will assign an overall performance confidence assessment ratings in accordance with the below table.

Adjectival Ratings 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.

Neutral Confidence 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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

While “Neutral Confidence” ratings will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably, the Government may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” rating is worth more than a “Neutral

Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff.