Inactive Total Small Business Set-Aside (FAR 19.5)

Maneuvering Consultant Service - LCS Transit of Great Lakes This is a combined synopsis/soliciation for commercial services prepared in accordance with the format in subpart 12.6, as supplemented with... Maneuvering Consultant Service - LCS Transit of Great Lakes This is a combined synopsis/soliciation for commercial services prepared in accordance with the format in subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitues the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. The NAICS Code is 488330 Navigational Services to Shipping and the PCS Code is V288 Transportation: Port Operations. Small Business Standard is $41,500,000.00 or less. The contractor shall provide technical support services to the U. S. Navy Freedom Class Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Platform (3100 tons, LOA: 389 ft., Beam: 59 ft., Draft: 14 ft., Navigational Draft: 20 ft., Diesel/Gas Turbine Waterjet propulsion) while navigating from Marinette, WI through the Great Lakes and Saint Lawrence Seaway, to include all associated locks and canals. The scope of this PWS includes consulting services to support the safe navigation and maneuvering in close quarters situations for Littoral Combat Ships through all phases of the transit. The contractor shall possess an Unlimited Tonnage Great Lakes Master license with pilotage for the entire Great Lakes. In addition, they shall have recent experience in transiting associated locks and canals from Marinette, WI through the Great Lakes. As a requirement of their USCG License, the Navigational Consultant shall operate under all aspects of the 46 U.S.C. Chapter 93-Great Lakes Pilotage. When a local pilot is embarked in addition to the maneuvering consultant, the two shall work together in advising the Commanding Officer in maneuvering of the ship and direction provided to tugs. The contractor shall remain a source for recommendations, even when a local pilot is embarked, and the Commanding Officer shall retain full command and responsibility for the safety of the ship at all times. The Maneuvering Consultant shall focus efforts on the training of the ship’s bridge teams and the safe maneuvering of the ship through waters that are inherently unfamiliar to the crew and assist in supporting and instructing the crew in navigation on the Great Lakes. The contractor shall provide all necessary consulting to the Commanding Officer with respect to mitigation of risk exposure, voyage planning, safe and effective methods of navigation, collision avoidance, sound seamanship practices, and local regulations. The NAVFAM will proceed from Marinette, WI to and back after a 3-day training period on the Lakes on or around 10 October 2022. In consideration of the potential for additional hazards to arise to include mechanical or weather delays, the period of performance may be extended regarding the continuation of the transit. The estimated period of performance is 13-15 Oct 2022 and 24 Oct 2022 – 10 Nov 2022 for an estimated total of 20 days. The Government intends to award a single Firm Fixed Priced (FFP) type contract to the responsible quoter whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation. The quoter’s proposal shall be in the form prescribed, and shall contain a response to each of the areas identified. This acquisition uses a simplified and streamlined process as authorized under FAR Part 12 and FAR Part 13. The quotation package shall consist of the following: a. Factor I – Technical Certifications (15 page limit) b. Factor II – Past Performance (12 page limit) c. Factor III - Price (no page limit) INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSIONS OF QUOTES 1. To ensure that all questions submitted by potential quoters are answered prior to the solicitation closing date, one consolidated list of questions concerning the solicitation should be submitted via e-mail to the contracting point of contact, to Michael A. Owen II (michael.a.owen.civ@us.navy.mil), Brett Barnes (howard.b.barnes3.civ@us.navy.mil) and Ricardo Lopez (ricardo.a.lopez38.civ@us.navy.mil) 1000 AM, Eastern Standard Time (EST), on 03 October 2022. The Government reserves the right not to respond to any questions received concerning this solicitation after the questions receipt date above. Accordingly, vendors are encouraged to carefully review all solicitation requirements and submit questions to the Government early in the solicitation timeframe. 2. The evaluation factors are listed below. This section specifies the requested format that quoters utilize; the intent is not to restrict quoters in the manner in which they will perform their work but rather to ensure a certain degree of uniformity in the format of the responses for evaluation purposes. The quote should contain the following items in addition to the other information required by this solicitation: The cover page should indicate the following: a. Request for Quote Number b. Name and Address of Quoter, Cage Code, DUNS Unique Entity Identification, and SAM Unique Entity Identification c. Point of Contact name, telephone number and email address d. Quote validity period of at least 90 days from the submittal of the RFQ 3. Each factor is limited to the maximum number of pages as defined above. These page limitations are inclusive of the executive summary and any charts, diagrams, and/or other graphics. Graphics (including tables) in the submittal may use an alternative font with 8 point size type or larger. Each “page” is defined as one sheet, 8 ½ “ x 11”, with at least one inch margins on all sides, using a font with a point size of 12 or greater (e.g., "Times New Roman" style with 12 point font). Lines shall, at a minimum, be single spaced. Pages shall be consecutively numbered. Multiple pages, double pages, two-sided pages, or foldouts will count as an equivalent number of 8 ½" x 11" pages. Quoters are permitted to submit no more than one page for each of the following which will not be included in the page count: a cover sheet, list of tables, list of figures, compliance matrix, table of contents, and dividers. Pages submitted in excess of the page limitations described above will not be evaluated. QUOTE CONTENT Factor I – Technical Certifications The quoter shall provide documentary evidence that demonstrates their experience navigating the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Freedom Variant, or identical waterjet driven ships, in the Great Lakes. The quoter shall demonstrate that they have completed at least two transits of the associated locks and canals between Marinette, WI, Escanaba, MI and Halifax, NS within the last five (5) years. Experience may be documented in various forms such as certificates of discharge, a continuous discharge book, pilotage service and billing forms, and service letters or other official documents from marine companies signed by the owner, operator, master or chief engineer of the vessel. Documentary evidence must meet the Coast Guard’s standards for authenticity and acceptability. The quoter shall also provide proof of completion of a U.S. Navy sponsored LCS training course. Factor II - Past Performance The quoter shall demonstrate relevant past performance or affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant past performance. Relevant past performance is performance under contracts or efforts within the past five years prior to the solicitation closing date that is the same as or similar to, the scope and magnitude of the work described by this solicitation. To demonstrate its past performance, the quoter shall identify up to three (3) of its most relevant contracts or efforts within the past five (5) years and provide any other information the quoter considers relevant to the requirements of the solicitation. Quoters should provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the relevance of the contracts or efforts to the requirements of the solicitation. If subcontractor past performance is provided as part of the three (3) of its most relevant contracts or efforts, the percentage of work to be done by the subcontractor on this current effort must be provided. Therefore, the quoter’s submittal shall detail clearly the aspects of the work in the solicitation that the subcontractor is proposed to perform. In addition to the information requested above, quoters shall contact their past performance references and request that each reference complete the attached Past Performance Report Form (Attachment I) and e-mail the completed survey form directly to Michael A. Owen II (michael.a.owen.civ@us.navy.mil) , Brett Barnes (howard.b.barnes3.civ@us.navy.mil) and Ricardo Lopez (ricardo.a.lopez38.civ@us.navy.mil) no later than 1700 EST on 05 October 2022. The Government reserves the right to consider past performance report forms received after the due date of the solicitation and to contact references for verification or additional information. Factor III - Price This submittal shall include completed solicitation documents and additional supporting documentation described below. a. A complete and signed Standard Form (SF) 1449, “Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items” and executed copy of Amendments, if applicable. b. RFQ Section “Schedule of Supplies/Services” completed by the quoter. c. Unless completed in https://www.sam.gov, “Offeror Representations and Certifications” shall be completed by the quoter. d. All Subcontractor price should be broken out separately and included in the price submittal. Subcontractor labor cost should be clearly identifiable. In accordance with FAR 52.219-14 entitled “Limitations on Subcontracting” at least 50% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern. Therefore, the prime contractor must perform at least 50% of the contract performance. All price and price supporting information shall be contained in the price submittal. No price or pricing information shall be included in any other submittal including cover letters. Vendors are responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate their price submittal. The Government intends to award a Firm Fixed Price contract to the responsible vendor whose quote represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation. The Government intends to award solely on the information contained in the quote and is not obligated to seek completion or clarification of technical and past performance information. The Government intends to award without discussions. The selection of a vendor for award will be based on evaluation of the following factors: Factor I – Technical Certifications, Factor II – Past Performance and Factor III – Price. The evaluation of quotes will consider Factor I – Technical Certifications and Factor II – Past Performance, to be more important than Factor III – Price. Factor I – Technical Certifications Factor I – Technical Certifications will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis of their ability to demonstrate experience navigating the LCS Freedom Variant, or identical waterjet driven ships, in the Great Lakes while completing at least one transit of the associated locks and canals between Marinette, WI and Halifax, NS within the last five (5) years, and prior completion of the Navy’s sponsored LCS course. This will be evaluated during Phase I utilizing the Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable ratings in Table 1 below. In order for a proposal to move on to Phase II of the evaluation, the offer must receive a rating of "Acceptable" for Factor I. Offers, which receive a rating of “Unacceptable” for this factor, will no longer be considered for award and no further evaluation will be conducted. Factor II – Past Performance Evaluation: Past performance will be evaluated based on relevancy and confidence. For the Past Performance Factor, the ratings identified in Tables 2 and 3 below, entitled “Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Table” and “Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Table,” respectively will be used for the assignment of ratings for relevancy and confidence assessment. Relevancy includes similarity in scope and magnitude. Quoter’s past performance information will be evaluated to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. Past Performance will be assessed as follows: Evaluation will focus only on work experience already performed. Work yet-to-be performed, and work prior to the last 5 years, will not be considered. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings – Regarding relevancy, each past performance reference under each quoter’s Past Performance submission will be evaluated to determine its scope and magnitude relative to the instant requirement. The following definitions will apply to this evaluation: • Scope: Experience in the areas defined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). • Magnitude: The measure of the similarity of the dollar value of actually performed work which exists between the PWS and the quoter’s references. Quoter’s lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. However, the proposal of an quoter with no relevant past performance history, while not rated favorably or unfavorably for past performance, may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government. In this instance, the quoter will receive a rating of “Not Relevant” in the relevancy rating factor. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings – The overall assigned rating for Past Performance will be the Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The assignment of this rating will be based on the quality of the relevant past performance and will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance. The quality of performance under a past performance reference that that has no relevance to the instant requirement will not be considered in the overall assessment of Past Performance Confidence. In the case of a quoter without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the quoter may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance rather the quoter will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating. In order to verify past performance information and determine the quality of the past performance submission, the Government may contact some or all of the references provided, as appropriate, and may collect information through questionnaires (i.e. the Past Performance Report Form), telephone interviews and existing data sources to include but not limited to Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting (CPARS). The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. This past performance information will be used for the evaluation of past performance. This evaluation and rating is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the quoter’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the relative capability of the quoter and other competitors to successfully meet the requirements of the RFQ. In determining the rating for the past performance evaluation factor, the Government will give greater consideration to the contracts which the Government feels are most relevant to the RFQ. Factor III – Price Evaluation: The vendor’s proposed price will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 13.106-3(a). Vendors responding to this solicitation are advised that, prior to award, the government may request vendors to submit information/data to support price reasonableness such as copies of paid invoices for the same or similar services, sales history for the same or similar services, price list with effective date and/or copies of catalog pages along with any applicable discounts. Failure to submit the requested information may result in disqualification of the submitted quote. Although price is the not the most important evaluation factor, it has the potential to become more significant during the evaluation process. The degree of importance of price will increase with the degree of equality of the quotes in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based. The importance of price will also increase when a vendor's price is so significantly high as to diminish the value to the Government that might be gained under the other aspects of the offer. If, at any stage of the evaluation, all quoter’s are determined to have submitted equal, or virtually equal, quotes, price could become the factor in determining which quoter’s shall receive the award. Rating Tables: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings (Table 1) Rating Description Acceptable Quote clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Not Relevant Quote does not clearly meet he minimum requirements of the solicitation. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings (Table 2) Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires. Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires. Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires. Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings (Table 3) Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the quoter’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the quoter will successfully perform the required effort. Satisfactory Confidence Based on the quoter’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the quoter will successfully perform the required effort. Limited Confidence Based on the quoter’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the quoter will successfully perform the required effort. No Confidence Based on the quoter’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the quoter will be able to successfully perform the required effort. Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the quoter’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. Source Selection Decision The Government intends to evaluate quotations and award a contract using the acquisition procedures of FAR 12 and FAR 13. The Government will select the vendor whose quote represents the best value to the Government, considering price and other factors when compared to other vendors. The Government also reserves the right to not award a contract or order if the award is not in the best interest of the Government. (End of provision)