Inactive

This is a COMBINED SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATION for commercial items prepared in accordance with the information in FAR Subpart 12.6, using Simplified Acquisition Procedures under FAR 13 as supplemented with... This is a COMBINED SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATION for commercial items prepared in accordance with the information in FAR Subpart 12.6, using Simplified Acquisition Procedures under FAR 13 as supplemented with the additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; a written solicitation will not be issued. PAPER COPIES OF THIS SOLICITATION WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE. The RFQ number is N0024420RREV5. This was previously posted under N0024420R0005. The PWS and evaluation criteria have been updated. This solicitation documents and incorporates provisions and clauses in effect 17 January 2020. It is the responsibility of the contractor to be familiar with the applicable clauses and provisions. The clauses may be accessed in full text at these addresses: https://www.acquisition.gov/far/ and http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfarspgi/current/index.html. This solicitation is issued as a full and open competition. The NAICS Code is: 334220. NAVSUP FLC San Diego, Port Hueneme Office, requests responses from qualified sources capable of providing the following services at Finegayan Guam. The 10 meter Satellite Tracking Station at Detachment (Det) Charlie Guam supports the Naval Satellite Operations Center (NAVSOC). The tracking station provides Telemetry, Tracking, and Commanding (TT and C) operations of the Navy’s Communication Satellite system. Software drivers were developed by NAVSOC for the Integrated Satellite Control System (ISCS) to communicate with the Telemetry and Communications Systems (TCS) ACU at Det Charlie for status and control capabilities through a secure network architecture. Contractor shall upgrade the existing SGLS antenna system at Det C Guam with a mono pulse Auto Track capability in order to allow the antenna to track satellites operating in geosynchronous orbit (GEO) and Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The upgrade may also include the following antenna control system equipment, at a minimum, to support the new mono pulse auto track system or to replace obsolete equipment: antenna control unit, power drive unit, servos, brakes, encoders, synchros, transformers, and cabling. Effort to be performed in accordance with attached Performance Work Statement. Delivery Date: Required no later than 330 days after award. Delivery Location: The contractor will provide travel arrangements to Det Charlie Finegayan Guam for on-site installation and testing. Responsibility and Inspection: Unless otherwise specified in the order, the supplier is responsible for the performance of all inspection requirements and quality control. The following Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses and provisions apply to this acquisition: 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors Commercial Items (OCT 2018), Subparagraph (c) of the referenced provision is changed to 90 days; 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/Management Proposal II. Past Performance III. Price I. Technical/Management Approach. The offeror shall provide in detail a technical approach that will successfully accomplish the requirements of the PWS. The offeror shall also address its proposed organizational structure and overall management of the effort in order to ensure successful performance of the contract. II. Past Performance. The offeror shall submit information as required by FAR Clause 52.212-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS - COMMERCIAL ITEMS. III. Price – Shall include all costs of components and any travel for installation and training. 52.212-2, Evaluation - Commercial Items (OCT 2014), the fill-in for Subparagraph (a) is: 1.0 Basis for Award: 1.1 The award resulting from this solicitation will be a firm-fixed price award. Award will be made using a best value methodology for source selection. Offerors are advised that the Government reserves the right to make award to other than the lowest price offeror, or to the offeror with the highest technical rating if the Government determines that to do so would result in the overall best value to the Government. As indicated below, Factor I (Technical Capability), Factor II (Past Performance), and Factor III (Price) are listed in descending order of importance. When combined, the non-price factors [Factor I (Technical), Factor II (Past Performance)], are significantly more important than Factor III (Price). A rating of “unacceptable” or “marginal” in any factor may render the entire proposal ineligible for award. 1.2 Technical Capability is significantly more important than Past Performance Relevancy and Past Performance Confidence combined. Although price is considered in every award decision, non-price factors when combined are significantly more important than price. In situations where non-price factors between offerors are equal, price becomes more important and may become a major factor for the award decision. 1.3 To be eligible for award, the offeror must fully comply with the PWS, and address all solicitation requirements. As such, offers that take exception to any term or condition of this solicitation, propose any additional term or condition, or omit any required information, may not be considered for award. Alternate proposals will be accepted. An offeror must propose in accordance with the directions set forth above to be considered for award. The Government will determine the interpretation of any ambiguities or discrepancies. 1.4 The Government intends to award this contract without discussions. Notwithstanding this intent, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to conduct discussions, a matter within his discretion. The Government also reserves the right to limit the number of offerors in the competitive range for purposes of efficiency. At the conclusion of discussions, the Contracting Officer shall give each offeror an opportunity to revise its proposal as appropriate. 2.0 Evaluation Factors and Grading Criteria. The Government will evaluate proposals based on the following Factors, all of which are listed in descending order of importance: 2.1 Factor I – Technical Capability 2.2 Factor II – Past Performance 2.3 Factor III – Price Both Technical Capability and Past Performance will be given an overall rating which will be used for the best value analysis. 3.0 Relative Weights: 3.1 Factor I (Technical Capability) and Factor II (Past Performance Confidence) are listed in descending order of importance. When combined, the non-price factors [Factor I (Technical Capability) and Factor II (Past Performance Confidence), are significantly more important than Factor III (Price). A rating of “unacceptable” or “marginal” in any Factor or Sub-factor may render the entire proposal ineligible for award. 3.2 Factor I (Technical Capability) The overall rating will be used in the trade off analysis to determine the best value offer. An overall rating of unacceptable or marginal for Factor I and may render the entire proposal ineligible for award. 3.3 Award will be made to that offeror whose proposal contains the combination of those criteria offering the best overall value to the Government. The government will conduct a tradeoff analysis of the non-price and price factors. This analysis may result in award to an offeror who may not have offered the lowest price. In making this comparison the Government is more concerned with obtaining superior Technical Capability (Factor I) and Past Performance (Factor II), rather than awarding to the lowest priced proposal. 4.0 Factor I – Technical Capability Grading Criteria: Inherent in a best value evaluation is the fact the Contracting Officer, while always mindful of price, encourages strengths and/or innovative approaches. Accordingly, to the extent an offeror provides strengths to its proposal, the offeror may receive a higher rating. However, Offerors are advised that the Government may give a higher rating only if the strength(s) represent a real value or benefit to the Government. 4.1 The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the Combined Technical/Risk Ratings set forth below. Each Offeror’s technical/management approach will be evaluated to determine how well the technical/management approach adequately demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the technical support requirements of the PWS. 4. 2 The following table of Ratings/Definition/Description shall be used for the Technical/Risk Rating for Factor (I). The overall Factor I (Technical Capability) rating will be determined by evaluating the ratings for each of the sub-factors. The overall rating will be used for tradeoff analysis. Inherent in the Factor (I) rating definition is a component for risk, reflecting the projected risk of the proposed approach to successfully perform the contract. TABLE 1 - COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING Ratings 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. 4. 3 Unacceptable Rating. Any proposal receiving a score of unacceptable or marginal in a factor or any sub-factor may render the entire proposal ineligible for award. 5.0 Factor II – Past Performance Grading Criteria 5.1 Each offeror will be first evaluated for relevancy. The relevancy rating will then be incorporated in the confidence rating. The more relevant the past performance data submitted, the higher the government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform. 5.2 The assessment of offerors past performance will be used by the government as a means to evaluate the relative capability of the offeror and other competitors to successfully meet the requirements of the PWS and as a measure of performance risk for contract award. The government’s assessment of performance risk is not intended to be the product of a mechanical or mathematical analysis of an offeror’s performance on a list of contracts, but rather the product of subjective judgment of the Government after it considers all available relevant and recent information. 5.3 The government intends to verify past performance information on contracts listed by the offerors. The government may contact some or all of the references. 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. 5.4 In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the government will not evaluate the offeror favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Such offerors will receive a neutral rating for past performance. However, the proposal of an offeror with no relevant past performance history, while rated Neutral in past performance, may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the government, and thus, may be an unsuccessful proposal when compared to the proposals of other offerors. 5.5 Following the evaluation of relevancy, the government will then evaluate offerors for confidence. These ratings incorporate the Relevancy rating. Because the definition for confidence includes the Relevancy rating, the adjective Confidence rating will be used for the overall Past Performance rating. In determining Confidence, the Government shall consider how well the contractor has performed on previous contracts in areas such as timeliness, quality, price control, and customer satisfaction. 5.6 Each offeror shall submit past performance that can be given a rating for both Relevancy and Confidence or affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant past performance. If the offeror does neither of the foregoing, the proposal may not be eligible for award. 5.7 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings 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. 5.12 Factor II Grading Criteria – Past Performance Confidence : Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offerors 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 offerors 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 offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. No Confidence Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. Definitions Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or governments confidence) that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitations requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information. Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which the offerors proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or sub-factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased price or degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Strength is an aspect of an offerors proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the government during contract performance. Weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. FAR 52.204-7 System for Award Management FAR 52.204-13 System for Award Management Maintenance FAR 52.204-21 Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems FAR 52.204-10 Reporting Subcontract Awards. FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation of Commercial Items FAR 52.212-3 Offeror Reps and Certs FAR 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions-Commercial Items FAR 52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders— Commercial Items. FAR 52.217-6 Option for Increased Quantity FAR 52.222-3 Convict Labor FAR 52.222-19 Child Labor--Cooperation with Authorities and Remedies FAR 52.222-21 Prohibition of Segregated Facilities FAR 52.222-26 Equal Opportunity FAR 52.222-35 Equal Opportunity for Special Disabled Veterans, Veterans of the Vietnam Era, and Other Eligible Veterans FAR 52.222-36 Affirmative Action for Workers w/ Disabilities FAR 52.222-37 Employment Reports on Special Disabled Veterans, Veterans of the Vietnam Era, and Other Eligible Veterans. FAR 52.223-18 Contractor Policy to Ban Text Messaging while Driving (SEPT 2010) FAR 52.225-13 Restrictions on Certain Foreign Purchases. FAR 52.232-18 Availability of Funds FAR 52.232-40 Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors FAR 52.247-34, F.o.b. Destination applies DFARS 252.203-7000 Requirements Relating to Compensation of Former DoD Officials DFARS 252.204-7012 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting DFARS 252.204-7015 Notice of Authorized Disclosure of Information for Litigation Support DFARS 252.211-7003 Item Unique Identification and Valuation DFARS 252.212-7001 Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders Applicable to Defense Acquisitions of Commercial Items. (MAR 2011) DFARS 252.225-7001 Buy American and Balance of Payments Program—Basic DFARS 252.227-7015 Technical Data--Commercial Items DFARS 252.227-7037 Validation of Restrictive Markings on Technical Data DFARS 252.232-7003 Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving Reports DFARS 252.232-7006 Wide Area WorkFlow Payment Instructions DFARS 252.232-7010 Levies on Contract Payments DFARS 252.246-7008 Sources of Electronic Parts UNIT PRICES (JUL 2016) Contractor unit prices, when incorporated into a Government contract, may be releasable under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in the event NAVSUP FLCSD receives a FOIA request. Questions may be submitted to the Contact Specialist Nancy Landeros via email nancy.landeros@navy.mil using subject line: RFQ N00244-20-R-REV5. Quotes will be accepted via email submitted to: nancy.landeros@navy.mil. Each response must clearly indicate the capability of the offeror to meet all specifications and requirements. All responsible sources may submit a quote which shall be considered by the agency. All quotes shall include price(s), FOB point, a point of contact, name and phone number, business size, and payment terms. Oral communications are NOT acceptable in response to this notice. System for Award Management (SAM). Quoters must be registered in the SAM database to be considered for award. Registration is free and can be completed on-line at http://www.sam.gov/.