Submission and Evaluation Instructions.pdf

N68335‐20‐R‐0224

Submission and Evaluation Instructions

SOLICITATION NO. N68335‐20‐R‐0224

The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Lakehurst, NJ, intends to procure three (3) Electo‐magnetic‐ interference (EMI) hardened Instrumentation Equipment Rack Systems 2020 (IERS 2.0) through competition on a Fixed Price basis. It is anticipated that this effort will have a delivery time frame of six

(6) months. This requirement shall be fulfilled by supplying “commercial items/services” as defined in

Section 2.101 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)s.

As the anticipated value of this procurement is below $7.5 million, the Government intends to synopsis, solicit, evaluate, and award this effort utilizing FAR Part 13 simplified acquisition procedures as authorized by FAR 13.5.

Evaluation Criteria:

Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 13.106‐2 Evaluation of Quotations or Offers. Award of the contract resulting from this solicitation will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, is in full compliance to all other requirements set forth in the solicitation, and offers the lowest price.

Technical ‐ Volume I – 10 Page Limit

Potential sources shall document that they can perform in accordance with all requirements of the

Statement of Work (SOW). Offerors shall provide a detailed technical narrative that demonstrates their capability to perform each function in the SOW. Digital copies should be submitted to Mrs. Devin Hader, devin.hader@navy.mil .

Note: This volume shall not contain any reference to cost or price aspects of the offer.

Price ‐ Volume II: ‐ No Page Limit

(a) Pricing information shall be submitted in a format that matches the chart in paragraph (d), below. It is important to note that the Line Item reflects the anticipated Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) structure of the resultant contract.

(b) No price or pricing information shall be included in any other volume, including cover letters.

Offerors are responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate their price proposal.

(c) Each offeror’s price proposal shall be evaluated to determine if it is complete, consistent and reasonable with the offeror’s technical approach, reflects a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements and contains any material imbalances. In its evaluation, the Government may use commercially published data, same or similar Department of Defense (DoD) contracts, Government estimates, industry standards, Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit information, or other information as deemed appropriate by the Government.

(d) The total evaluated Price will be derived as follows:

CLIN Manufacturer Part Number

Description Unit of Measure

QTY Total Price

0001 TBD TBD Instrumentation Equipment Rack System

IAW Statement of Work

EACH 3

Ground Rules

(a) As this is a competitive acquisition with adequate price competition anticipated, any price documentation requested shall not be certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.406‐

2. However, in the event that adequate price competition does not exist after receipt of proposals, the Government reserves the right to request additional cost or pricing data as necessary from both the Offeror and subcontractors and may conduct negotiations with the Offeror, pursuant to FAR

Part 15.403‐4, in order to ensure a reasonable and realistic price. Further, the Offeror may be required to provide a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data prior to award, pursuant to FAR

15.406‐2. Offeror shall acknowledge the requirement to provide additional cost or pricing information and certify the data prior to award if/when requested by the Government.

(b) The Offeror shall provide sufficient information to support its price as well as an explanation of all ground rules and assumptions that affect the price estimates. Any apparent imbalances in the pricing, high or low proposed prices as compared to historical data, or any other anomalies should be fully explained. Topics to be addressed include, but are not limited to, investments, programmatic variables (e.g., inflation/escalation, location, make/buy decisions, prime/subcontractor relationships, and business base concerns), etc.

(c) Reasonableness and Consistency between the Technical and Price Volumes. The Offeror shall demonstrate that the unit price is reasonable, realistic, and commensurate with the work required by the solicitation. The Price Volume shall show traceability with the CLINS, proposed effort, and the prices. The Price Volume shall refer to specific sections in the Technical Volume as needed to illustrate the consistency between the Price Volume and the Technical Volume. The Offeror shall explain any inconsistency between promised performance and price, as well as any appearance of unbalanced pricing, in the proposal.

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

A fair and reasonable price determination memorandum will be reviewed and approved by the

Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). The fair and reasonable price determination memorandum will establish price reasonableness and the Eligible Offeror’s determination of responsibility (FAR 9.103) and financial stability (FAR 9.104‐1(a)). In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1), competition establishes price reasonableness. Therefore, when contracting on a firm‐fixed basis, comparison of the proposed prices will usually satisfy the requirements to perform a price analysis, and a cost analysis need not be performed. In addition, Certified Cost or Pricing Data is not required in accordance with FAR 15.403(c)

(1)(i).

The Government may award a contract 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. However, if considered necessary by the Contracting Officer, discussions will be conducted with only those offerors determined necessary to ensure efficient competition.

Technical Criteria Ratings / Definitions:

For the Technical Criteria, a Rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable will be assigned. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a factor with an “Unacceptable” Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings