USS BARRY Hull Preservation N4523A24Q0552

**SEE FULL SOLICITATION IN ATTACHMENTS**

REQUEST FOR QUOTE (RFQ): Firm Fixed Price Purchase Order
N4523A24F0552
USS BARRY Hull Restoration
DEADLINE FOR QUOTE SUBMISSION IS: 12:00pm Pacific Standard Time (PST)
Wednesday, 17 January 2024

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial products or commercial services prepared in accordance with the format in subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. The Request for Quote (RFQ) N4523A24Q0552 is issued as an unrestricted procurement. The subject solicitation is being processed using FAR Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures, using evaluation procedures in FAR Part 15 (FAR 13.106-2(b)). The applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing. This solicitation documents and incorporates provisions and clauses thatare those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2023-01 (Effective 30 December 2022).

The purpose of this contract is to provide paint coatings and related products to the US Navy fleet in a timely manner, which may require fully employing all of the Contractor’s facilities. The Contractor is responsible for delivering the full range and depth of all products to Seattle & Everett, WA.

The Contractor will be required to make deliveries to Seattle, WA. See Navy Product Support (Attachment 1) and the Availbility Schedule (Attachment 5) for delivery dates.

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS
PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS
1.0 GENERAL

To compete for the contract described in the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation notice, Offerors must submit an offer that includes the following items: (1) a price proposal, (2) a technical capability proposal, and (3) relevant information concerning offeror’s past performance. Only one (1) offer will be accepted from each offeror. The Government will not accept alternate proposals. The Government will not entertain nonconforming proposals. If the offeror fails or refuses to assent to any of the terms and conditions of this solicitation, proposes additional terms or conditions, or fails to submit any of the information required by paragraph 2.0, the Government will consider the offer to be unacceptable, which will make the offeror ineligible for contract award.

Solicitation information and amendments will be made available through the SAM.gov website at
https://SAM.gov/.

The solicitation, which will include attachments, can be downloaded directly to the contractor’s workstations. Offerors are advised to periodically check the SAM.gov website for responses to presolicitation inquires and any amendments that have been issued containing important information related to the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation notice.

Offerors may submit written questions using the pre-proposal information form (Attachment 8) during the quote preparation period. All questions must be received no later than 12 January 2024, 1200 (PST) to allow adequate time to prepare and issue responses to all offerors prior to the date and time set for receipt of quotes. Only written questions will receive a response. All questions and quotes shall be directed to Contracting Officer Mrs. Denise Manor (Email: denise.manor@navy.mil) or Contract Specialist Mr. Brian Vanderway (Email: brian.vanderway@navy.mil)

2.0 OFFER (PRICE PROPOSAL)

The offer must consist of the following:

a. One (1) page transmittal letter that includes the following content: Firm’s name, CAGE code, Unique
Entity ID, address, contact name and phone number. Offeror must provide a period of 60 days from proposal due date for Government acceptance of the offer 

b. Exhibit A, Paint Supplies and Services Table – Offerors must provide a unit price and confirm total amount for all Exhibit Line Item Numbers (ELINs) in the pre-formulated Microsoft Excel spreadsheets provided in Exhibit A. If an offeror has any questions or is uncertain whether a specific ELIN has been formulated correctly, the offeror shall contact the Contract Specialist. Offeror must provide a firm-fixed price for Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) 0001 and 0002.

The electronic version of Exhibit A must be submitted in the form of a CD-ROM or email and match the hardcopy submitted and shall be compatible with Microsoft Excel 2016.

c. FAR 52.212-3 “Offeror Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items” with appropriate fillins completed.

d. Amendment(s) (if any) - The offeror shall submit a signed completed copy of each amendment.

e. Contract Data Requirement List (CDRL) – The offeror shall submit Exhibit B, with blocks 17 and 18 completed by the offeror for each CDRL (B001, B002, B003, B004, B005, B006, B007, B008, B009, B010,
B011, B012). See provision L-215-H004 for instructions for pricing CDRLs.

f. FAR 52.225-18 - Place of Manufacture, completed by offeror.

Proposal Due Date: All copies of proposals must be received by the Government at the address below no later than 17 January 2024 at 12:00 PST. Offerors must send in their proposals by mail, email, or delivery in person to the contracting address listed below. Partial proposals or attachments submitted late WILL NOT be considered. Per FAR 15.208, it is the offerors’ responsibility to ensure their proposals are received by the contract specialists no later than the specified solicitation closing date and time. To ensure the Government received your proposal, offerors are encourage to request written acknowledgement from Procuring Contracting Officer Mrs. Denise Manor (Email: Denise.manor@navy.mil) or Contracts Specialist Mr. Brian Vanderway (Email: brian.vanderway@navy.mil) from NWRMC Code 451.

NO FACSIMILE PROPOSALS, OR PROPOSALS UPLOADED TO THE SAM.GOV WEBSITE WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Proposals submission shall be sent to:
Northwest Regional Maintenance Center
Attn: Mr. Brian Vanderway or Mrs. Denise Manor, NWRMC Code 451
2000 W Marine View Dr.
Everett, WA 98207

Offeror(s) that elect to submit proposals in person at the above address shall contact Contract Specialist
Denise Manor at (360) 535-2909 in advance to arrange an appointment.

Offerors shall mark all submittals “DO NOT OPEN PACKAGE IN MAIL ROOM—FORWARD UNOPENED
DIRECTLY TO MR. GARY EATON OR MR. Alexander Stutzman”. The outside of the package shall clearly indicate the offeror’s name, the solicitation number and the contents of the package.

Proper completion and submission of the above items of information will constitute an offer to perform in accordance with the terms and conditions of this solicitation, including attachments and documents incorporated by reference. The offer must communicate unconditional assent to the terms and conditions of this solicitation, its attachments, and documents incorporated by reference. The
Government’s acceptance of an offer will create a binding contract between the offeror and the
Government.

The Government will not entertain alternate proposals. If the offeror (1) fails or refuses to assent to any of the terms and conditions of this solicitation, (2) proposes additional terms or conditions, or (3) fails to submit any of the information required by this paragraph, then the Government will consider the offer to be unacceptable, which will make them ineligible for contract award. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and to permit offerors to revise their proposals if it is in the Government’s best interest to do so. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The
Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

3.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH (FACTOR 1)
Technical Approach Statement on how the Performance Work Statement will be accomplished by the quoter. Offeror must include proof of required paint warranty without waiver or subcontract; proof of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) certification and that the proposed paint, coatings, and preservation products meet the performance work statement. Offeror must also include resumes of key personnel who can officially represent the OEM that offeror intends to provide to accomplish the performance work statement.

Technical Approach Proposal Format:
All offerors shall submit a technical approach statement in accordance with the format and content specified. The page count is limited to sixty (60) pages for each copy. Both the printed and electronic copies shall meet the following format requirements:
•    Each page of every copy should be affixed with the date, RFP number, firm’s name, and following legend: “Source Selection Information, See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”
•    The standard typed page of the proposal document, i.e., one sided pages, shall be 8 ½ x 11inch paper
•    Foldouts are limited to tables, graphics, photographs and charts (as opposed to text/narrative).
•    An 11 x 17 inch sheet is acceptable provided that when folded it is equivalent to 8 ½ x 11 inch in size and single-spaced typed lines and for page numbering purposes will each count as one (1) page.
•    Single-spaced typed lines
•    Tables, graphics, photographs and charts are allowed
•    1 inch margins all around
•    12 point Times New Roman font in text
•    The font size for the text contained in table, graphics, photographs, and charts will be no smaller than 10 point Times New Roman font.
•    No hyperlinks
•    Utilize a CD for Electronic copies, if necessary

In the event any portion of the proposal is prepared or written by anyone who is not a bona fide employee of the firm submitting the proposals, a certificate to this effect shall be furnished. The certificate shall be signed by a responsible officer of the offeror and shall also identify the person’s name, employment capacity, the name of the person’s firm, the relationship of that firm to the offeror, and the portion of the proposal written by that person.

4.0 PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION (FACTOR 2)
Offerors shall provide Past Performance Questionnaires to their customers including the Department of
Defense customers, for completion (Attachment 6) for up to five (5) ship repair availabilities within the last three (3) years of this solicitation’s proposal due date involving same or similar efforts. Each proposal shall include no more than a total of five (5) Past Performance questionnaires, one per contract identified. Offerors shall fill in Parts I, II, and III for each customer and include as part of their proposal.
Parts I, II, and III of the past performance questionnaire shall not exceed three (3) pages. Separately, the offeror shall provide the entire Past Performance Questionnaire, with Parts I, II, and III completed, to each customer for them to complete Part IV. Customer evaluation will not be included as part of the page count in this volume submitted by the offeror. The offeror shall instruct their customers to complete the Past Performance Questionnaires and return them to the below address before the closing date of this solicitation.

Past Performance Questionnaires shall be sent to:
Northwest Regional Maintenance Center
Attn: Mr. Brian Vanderway or Mrs. Denise Manor, NWRMC Code 451
2000 W Marine View Dr.
Everett, WA 98207
denise.manor@navy.mil
brian.vanderway@navy.mil

The offeror’s proposal shall identify the customer point of contact and which of the listed contacts that each questionnaire was sent to for completion.

Offerors may inquire as to the status of receipt of these questionnaires using the e-mail address shown above. For Past Performance information that has a completed Contractor Performance Assessment
Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation in Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the offeror is only required to complete PARTS I, II, and III of the Past Performance Questionnaire
(Attachment 6). It is the offeror's responsibility to ensure that completed questionnaires are in the
Contracting Officer's possession ON OR BEFORE THE REQUIRED PROPOSAL DUE DATE AND TIME. Any questionnaire received after the proposal due date/time will be late and may not be considered in the offeror’s past performance evaluation. The Government, at its discretion, will determine whether or not questionnaires received after the proposal due date will be considered. The Government may validate past performance information with the source.

EVALUATION FACTORS
ATTACHMENT 3
EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD
BASIS FOR AWARD

1.0 GENERAL

This Combined Synopsis/Solicitation is an Unrestricted Procurement under NAICS 325510. The
Government intends to award a Single Award, Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract. The Government intends
to award a contract to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. The
Government shall determine best overall value on the basis of the following evaluation factors as
described in Section 3.0 below. The Government shall evaluate each offeror’s proposal in accordance
with the text herein and determine best overall value on the basis of the following evaluation factors as
described below in paragraph 3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS.

2.0 OFFER

The following conditions must be met in order to be eligible for award:

(a) The proposal must comply in all material respects with the requirements of the law, regulation and
conditions set forth in this solicitation and must meet all material solicitation requirements.

(b) Proposals must manifest the offeror’s assent, without exception or imposition of condition(s), to the
terms and conditions of this solicitation, including attachments and documents incorporated by
reference, and include material information required by the solicitation. Proposals that take exception
to any of the terms and conditions of the solicitation, impose additional conditions, or omit material
information required by this solicitation, will be considered unacceptable and therefore ineligible for
contract award.

(c) The award decision will be based on the Government’s evaluation of each offeror’s complete
proposal using the evaluation factors identified in Section 3.0 below. Award will be made to the
responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government after evaluation based
on the factors described herein. Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the
Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement (FAR
2.101).

(d) Award will only be made to an offeror that has no organizational conflict of interest (OCI) as defined
in FAR 9.5 or that the Government determines has provided a satisfactory mitigation plan in accordance
with L-209-H009 herein. Offerors are advised that technical proposals may be evaluated without
consideration of any proposed Subcontractor which is deemed to have an OCI and for which an
unsatisfactory mitigation plan has been proposed. An offeror that fails to identify a potential OCI or does
not submit an OCI mitigation plan with their proposal shall not be considered for award.

(e) Award will only be made to an offeror determined by the Contracting Officer to be responsible in
accordance with the standards contained in FAR 9.104-1.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposal in accordance with the factors contained in
Attachment 1 and listed below to determine the best value proposal. A proposal receiving an overall
rating of Unacceptable in technical approach, no confidence in past performance, or if the price is
considered unreasonable, will render it ineligible for award, regardless of the ratings received for the
remaining evaluation factors.

Factors    Subfactors
1.    Technical Approach    (None)
2.    Past Performance    (None)
3.    Price    (None)

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATION FACTORS

3.1.1 TECHNICAL APPROACH. (FACTOR 1)

The Government shall evaluate each offeror’s technical approach proposal submitted in accordance
with Attachment 1, Paragraph 3.0 Technical Approach and apply the adjectival rating described in
paragraph 3.2.3 to: Technical Approach (Factor 1).

3.1.2 PAST PERFORMANCE. (FACTOR 2)

Past performance is a measure of the degree to which the offeror and its subcontractors satisfied its
customers in previous recent and relevant contracts and complied with federal, state, and local laws and
regulations. The Government will evaluate past performance by determining recency and relevancy of
the offeror’s and subcontractors’ recent past performance and by conducting a performance confidence
assessment. “Recent performance” includes efforts within the past three (3) years, from proposal
submittal date. “Relevant performance” includes contractual efforts to provide same or similar support
services. Similar scope and complexity means having performed most of the types of support efforts
identified in the PWS. 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. “Quality” means how well the offeror performed on past contracts. The
Government may contact each offeror’s customers to inquire about overall management efficiency,
work quality, and record of forecasting and controlling direct and indirect costs.

The Government’s evaluation will take into account relevant information submitted by each offeror as
part of its proposal including the Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 6), if submitted.

The Government may use other information available from Government sources, to evaluate an
offeror’s or subcontractors’ past performance. The Government may also consider past performance
information obtained from sources other than those identified by the offeror or subcontractors,
including, but not limited to, federal, state, and local Government agencies, Better Business Bureaus,
published media and electronic databases and/or the Government’s Contractor Performance
Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) data base. 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 by
the offeror or subcontractors.

3.1.3 PRICE. (FACTOR 3)

The Government will evaluate the total proposed price of Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) 0001 and
0002 for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and FAR Subpart 15.4.

3.2 APPLICATION OF FACTORS

3.2.1 GENERAL

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposal in accordance with the factors contained in
Attachment 1 to determine the best value proposal. The evaluation factors represent key areas of
importance to be considered in the source selection decision. As demonstrated in their proposals,
offerors shall be evaluated in terms of their ability to meet or exceed the program’s requirements stated
in the performance work statement (PWS).

3.2.2 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

The evaluation factors include: Technical Approach (Factor 1), Past Performance (Factor 2), and Price
(Factor 3). Of the three (3) factors, Factor 1, Technical Approach, is more important than Factor 2, Past
Performance; Factor 2, Past Performance, is more important than Factor 3, Price.

3.2.3 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

The Government will perform an evaluation of the Technical Approach evaluation factors based on the
offeror’s proposal and the solicitation. This evaluation focuses on strengths and weaknesses of the
offeror’s proposal, resulting in the assignment of an adjectival rating for each factor. Price will not be
assigned an adjectival rating.

i. TECHNICAL APPROACH

The following adjectival ratings/definitions in the table below shall be used for evaluation of: Factor 1,
Technical Approach:

ADJECTIVAL RATING    DEFINITION
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.

ii. PAST PERFORMANCE

There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

RECENCY: The first aspect 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. Per Attachment 1
paragraph 4.0, Offerors shall provide past performance references from the past three (3) years of the
proposal submittal date.

RELEVANCE: The second aspect is 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. 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. Sources of past performance information may include information provided by the offeror,
information obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition, or any other
sources available to the Government. Other sources include, but are not limited to, the Contractor
Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), Federal
Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting
System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee
Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency. Relevancy ratings are based on
the definitions below:

RATING    DEFINITION
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.

QUALITY: 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 a
Performance Confidence Assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the
Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency,
relevancy, and quality of performance. Performance Confidence Assessment ratings are as follows:

4.0 SOURCE SELECTION DECISION
OVERALL CONFIDENCE RATING    DEFINITION
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.

The Government will make a source selection decision based on the Tradeoff process in accordance with
FAR 15.101-1 and decision process in FAR 15.308. The Government intends to award a contract to the
responsible offeror(s) whose proposal demonstrates the best value by exhibiting the greatest overall
technical merit and past performance confidence assessment at a reasonable price. Best value means
the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest
overall benefit in response to the requirement (FAR 2.101). Accordingly, the Government may be willing
to pay a reasonable premium for a proposal offering superior overall technical merit and past
performance. Conversely, the Government may select a lower-price, lower-rated proposal if the
Government determines that the premium associated with the higher-rated proposal is not justified. In
making its best value determination the Government shall consider technical merit (i.e., all non-price
factors taken together) to be more important than the total evaluated price. However, the importance
of total evaluated price as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality in overall
technical merit and past performance confidence assessment of competing proposals.