Inactive Total Small Business Set-Aside (FAR 19.5)

This is a COMBINED SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATION for commercial services prepared in accordance with the information in FAR Subpart 12.6 STREAMLINED PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND SOLICITATION FOR COMMERCIAL I... This is a COMBINED SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATION for commercial services prepared in accordance with the information in FAR Subpart 12.6 STREAMLINED PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND SOLICITATION FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS and FAR 13 SIMPLIFIED ACQUISTION PROCEDURES. Supplemented with 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. This combined synopsis/solicitation shall be posted on both Federal Business Opportunity (FBO) website at https://www.fbo.gov/ and NECO website (https://www.neco.navy.mil/). The RFQ number is N00244-21-Q-0098. This solicitation documents and incorporates provisions and clauses in effect through FAC 2021-05 and DFARS Publication Notice 20210224. 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. The NAICS code is 611620 and the proposed contract is a set aside for small business concerns. The Small Business Office concurs with the set-aside decision. The NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center San Diego requests responses from qualified sources capable of providing: 0001 COMMERCIAL PARACHUTE DROP ZONE RENTAL - 50 days of facility use IAW the PWS The following FAR provision and clauses are applicable to this procurement: 52.204-7 System for Award Management 52.204-24 Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment 52.204-26 Covered Telecommunications Equipment or Services-Representation 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items; 52.212-3 and its ALT I, Offeror Representations and Certifications - Commercial Items; 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions - Commercial Items; 52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders – Commercial Items [Applicable clauses: 52.204-10; 52.209-6; 52.209-10; 52.219.6; 52.219-28; 52.222-3; 52.222-19; 52.222-26; 52.225-13; 52.232-33]. 52.209-6 Protecting the Government’s Interest When Subcontracting with Contractors Debarred, Suspended, or Proposed for Debarment 52.209-10 Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations 52.222-19 Child Labor—Cooperation with Authorities and Remedies 52.222-21 Prohibition of Segregated Facilities 52.222-35 Equal Opportunity for Veterans 52.222-36 Affirmative Action for Workers with Disabilities 52.222-50 Combating Trafficking in Persons 52.222-53 Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Labor Standards to Contracts for Certain Services---Requirements 52.223-18 Encouraging Contractor Policies to Ban Text Messaging While Driving 52.232-18 Availability of Funds 52.239-1 Privacy or Security Safeguards 52.246-25 Limitation of Liability--Services 52.247-30 F.O.B. Origin, Contractor’s Facility 52.252-1 -- Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference 52.252-2 -- Clauses Incorporated by Reference Offerors shall include a completed copy of 52.212-3 and it’s ALT I with quotes. All clauses shall be incorporated by reference in the order. Additional contract terms and conditions applicable to this procurement are: 252.203-7000 Requirements Relating To Compensation of Former DoD Officials 252.203-7005 Representation Relating To Compensation of Former DoD Officials 252.203-7995 Prohibition on Contracting with Entities that Require Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements (Deviation) 252.203-7994 Prohibition on Contracting with Entities that Require Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements (Deviation) 252.204-7003 Control of Government Personnel Work Product (APR 1992) 252.204-7011 Alternative Line Item Structure 252.204-7012 Safeguarding of Unclassified Controlled Technical Information 252.204-7015 Disclosure of Information To Litigation Support Contractors 252.204-7016 Covered Defense Telecommunications Equipment or Services—Representation 252.204-7017 Prohibition on the Acquisition of Covered Defense Telecommunications Equipment or Services—Representation 252.232-7003 Electronic Submission of Payment Requests And Receiving Reports 252.232-7010 Levies On Contract Payments 252.244-7000 Subcontracts For Commercial Items And Commercial Components (DoD Contracts) 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. FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation: FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation - Commercial Items INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS I. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: 1. This requirement is set-aside for small businesses under North American Industry Classification System or NAICS Code 611620 Sports and Recreation Instruction. The Government contemplates awarding a Firm Fixed Price contract for non-personal services for Explosive Ordnance Disposal One (EOD-1) using the policies and procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 13 and whose offer conforms to the requirements of this solicitation. This solicitation is for Drop Zone Training Areas suitable a for Premeditated Personnel Parachute Operations (P3) and packing and briefing facilities utilizing the trade-off methodology. It consists of a 50 day base period of performance. 2. Questions regarding this procurement must be submitted through email to the contract specialist via email at: Angelina.pinahardin@navy.mil. All questions submitted shall include the solicitation number in the subject line. Other methods of questions submittal will not be acknowledged. The Government will make every attempt to answer all questions in a timely manner. All questions and answers will be posted for viewing by all other potential offerors. 3. Clarity and completeness of the offer are of the utmost importance. The quote must be written in a practical, clear, and concise manner. It must use quantitative terms whenever possible and must avoid qualitative adjectives to the maximum extent possible. Quote volumes must be internally consistent or the offer will be considered unrealistic and may be considered unacceptable. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions as authorized by FAR 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition. Any exception to the government’s technical requirements/specifications must be resolved prior to the solicitation closing date. Offerors that take exception to the Government’s technical requirements without prior resolution with the Contracting Officer will not be considered for award. Alternate quotes are not authorized and will be rejected. 4. The offer must convey evidence the offeror understands this combined synopsis/solicitation and PWS requirements. It must demonstrate the offeror’s familiarity with the detailed aspects of the requirements, and clearly show that the offeror correctly interpreted all of the requirements. Offerors are cautioned against restating PWS requirements in their quote, particularly with regard to technical requirements; and must state how all RFQ and PWS requirements will be met. Statements such as the offeror understands and the offeror shall/can comply, along with reference or industry references, does not reflect that the offeror understands the requirements, and will likely result in a diminished evaluation rating. II. OFFER FORMAT Offerors shall submit their quotes in the following format: ? Volume I – Cover Letter ? Volume II– Technical ? Volume III – Past Performance ? Volume IV– Price Volume Name *Number of Copies Page Limit Volume I – Cover Letter (1) Electronic Copy One Page Volume II – Technical*** (1) Electronic Copies (45) Pages exclusive of, table of contents, and table of figures. Volume III- Past Performance*** (1) Electronic Copies 2 Pages exclusive of Offerors Past Performance Data –Attachment 1 Volume IV- Price (1) Electronic Copy Unlimited ***Note Volume II and III must not contain any price or cost information. 1. Soft copies are to be submitted in electronic version via email to Angelina.pinahardin@navy.mil. Documents shall be submitted in Adobe PDF, Microsoft Word, or Excel format. Zip files are not allowed. Any other formats may not be accessed and may be determined as mishandled. All offers must be received by the date specified in the solicitation. This posted closing date and time applies to all submissions, as well as to all parts of the offer that are to be considered for award. 2. Offers must be legible, single-spaced typewritten (on one side only) in font size “11-12”, and the paper size is 8 ½ x 11 inches. The font size used for graphics, charts and tables (only) may be 10 points or larger. Tables, charts, and graphic depictions may be single spaced but limited to data and reference material presentation only, not textual explanations. Foldout charts or diagrams may be used within the aforementioned restrictions/page limitations. Each eight and a half by eleven foldout pages will be counted as one page (i.e., one foldout with two pages will be counted as two 8 1/2 x 11 pages). Charts or diagrams provided in foldout format must be capable of being evaluated without removal from the offer volume. Page numbers may fall within the 1-inch margin. 3. All pages in each volume shall be numbered sequentially (i.e.,1-45); pages identified above that are not included in the page limitation may be numbered differently or not at all. The Government will only evaluate that part of the offer that complies with the instructions set forth herein. For example, if an offeror submits extra pages, those pages will not be read and/or evaluated. III. OFFER CONTENT This request for quote has four volumes as follow: ? Volume One is the Cover Letter; ? Volume Two is the Technical Quote; ? Volume Three is Past Performance; and, ? Volume Four is Price. A. VOLUME ONE: This volume should include both the Cover Letter and the Offer: 1. Cover Letter: Offerors shall include the name of the company, the cage code, the physical address, the point of contact information (name, email and phone number), and the titles or names of all of the documents submitted in response to this solicitation. B. VOLUME TWO: This volume consists of the Technical quote. In this volume, offerors are cautioned not to provide statements paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof and using phrases such as “Standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used,” etc., will be considered unacceptable. Offerors should actually provide narratives, charts, and other like documentation demonstrating its Technical understanding and ability to meet the requirements of the PWS. In addition, this volume shall not include any cost or pricing information. The Technical quote is comprised of one Factor and two Sub-factors which shall be clearly marked as follows: 1. Factor I – Technical ? Sub-factor (1) – Technical Approach ? Sub-factor (2) – Quality Control Plan 1.1 Sub-factor (1) Technical Approach 2. The technical quote shall provide, in detail, an approach that will successfully demonstrate the offeror’s understanding and plan to complete the requirements for the accomplishment of the effort set forth in the solicitation. Offerors shall provide a clear detailed narrative of how it will address tasks and deliverables, including, but not limited to, resources needed, expertise available, and team configuration (by name, labor category, and skill set). The offer must describe how the offeror plans to meet or exceed the quality standards required to deliver graduate level education that requires on-site instruction, distance learning technologies, instructional design solutions, Web and media programmatic support, course development, and media development. 3. The Offeror shall provide a narrative explanation of its understanding of the minimum technical requirement listed in the PWS. The technical approach should demonstrate that the Offeror can accomplish the specified work in a technically competent, timely, price effective manner with a minimum of risk to the Government. The narrative should provide a complete analysis of the performance requirements and explain the processes, best practices and other methods the Offeror will use to meet each requirement stated in the PWS. The technical approach is not to be a restatement of the information contained in the PWS. Minimum Technical Acceptability Criteria 1. The contractor shall provide FACILITIES IAW PWS para. 4.0 2. The contractor shall provide SERVICES IAW PWS para. 5.0 3. The contractor shall provide DELIVERABLES IAW PWS para. 5.3 4. The contractor shall provide SCHEDULES IAW PWS para. 5.4 1.2 Sub-factor (2) Quality Control Plan: 1. The Quality Control Plan (QCP) will describe contractor self-monitoring, performance measurement, and documented compliance of the PWS and associated Performance Standards requirements. QCP will address the following areas: self-monitoring methods; performance measurements metrics; documenting compliance with the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) and PWS; methodology to be used for discrepancy resolution of any discrepancies, to include the ability to incorporate and address unplanned events and circumstances. (Note: Any proposed changes to QCP after contract award shall be submitted in writing and is subject to approval by the Contracting Officer.). C. VOLUME THREE. This volume consists of Past Performance. 1. Past Performance shall be evaluated based on the submission of past performance data supplied by the offeror’s reference/s, the Government’s verification of that data (including information supplied separately by previous customers), and review of any other pertinent information. Offerors shall contact their past performance references and request that each reference complete the “Offeror’s Past Performance Data” (OPPD) – Attachment 1. 2. Completed OPPDs shall be submitted by email directly to angelina.pinahardin@navy.mil no later than the closing date of this solicitation. The subject line of the emailed OPPD must read “SOLICITATION N00244-21-Q-0098”. Offerors may submit no more than three (3) OPPDs as the prime contractor; subcontractors may submit no more than two (2) OPPDs. 3. In addition to the OPPD, offeror’s shall include in past performance volume a one to two page document listing all potential references. Information to be provided is reference name, address, phone number, email address, and any other identifying information with respect to the OPPD such as Contract Number or type of work provided. 4. The Government shall evaluate the offeror’s past performance on similar or directly-related work performed within the past three years which is similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to that detailed in the Performance Work Statement. Past Performance shall be evaluated based on relevance and confidence (in terms of timeliness, quality, cost control, and customer satisfaction as indicated by the questionnaire). Past Performance references may include federal, state, or local Government and private contracts performed by the offeror that were similar in nature for this effort being evaluated. 5. Offerors may submit performance data regarding current contract performance as long as a minimum of one year of performance has been completed as of the closing date of this solicitation. Relevant past performance will be evaluated and receive scores in consonance with the evaluation scheme set forth in the RFP. 6. If the offeror possesses no relevant past performance, it must affirmatively state this fact in this volume. Failure to submit OPPDs shall be considered certification that the offeror has no past performance in relevant services for the Government to evaluate. D. VOLUME FOUR. This volume consists of the price quote. 1. Offeror shall provide proposed price summaries using MS excel format and shall include a summary table in the following format: POP Start Date End Date Days Unit Prices ($) Total Prices ($) CLIN 0001 01 May 2021 30 April 2022 50 Days (End of provision) EVALUATION CRITERIA I. BASIS OF AWARD 1. The award resulting from this solicitation will be a Firm Fixed Price contract resulting from this solicitation. Award will be made on a competitive small business set-aside basis, using a best value trade-off 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, the two non-cost factors [Factor I (Technical), Factor II (Past Performance) are listed in descending order of importance. When combined, the non-cost factors [Factor I (Technical), Factor II (Past Performance)], are significantly more important than Factor III (Price). A rating of “Unacceptable” in any factor or sub-factor may render the entire offer ineligible for award. 2. 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 terms or conditions of this solicitation, propose any additional term or condition, or omit any required information, may not be considered for award. Alternate offers are NOT authorized and will be rejected. An offeror must propose in accordance with the directions set forth in Section L to be considered for award. Additionally, prior to award, a responsibility determination will be made in accordance with FAR 9.104-1 and will take into consideration the information submitted by the offeror and information obtained from other resources. II. EVALUATION FACTORS AND GRADING CRITERIA A. Offer Evaluation: The Government will evaluate offers based on the following Factors and Sub-factors, listed in descending order of importance: Factor I – Technical ? Sub-factor (1) - Technical Approach ? Sub-factor (2) – Quality Control Plan Factor II – Past Performance Factor III – Price B. Relative Weights: 1. Factor I (Technical) and Factor II (Past Performance Confidence) are listed in descending order of importance. When combined, the non-cost factors [Factor I (Technical) and Factor II (Past Performance Confidence), are significantly more important than Factor III (Price). A rating of “Unacceptable” in any factor may render the entire offer ineligible for award. 2. There are two sub-factors under Factor I (Technical): Sub-factor (1) Technical Approach, Sub-factor (2) Quality Control Plan. These two sub-factors are in descending order of importance and shall be used to establish an overall rating for Factor I. An unacceptable in any sub-factor may result in an overall Factor I rating of unacceptable, rendering the entire offer ineligible for award. 3. Award will be made to that offeror whose offer contains the combination of those criteria offering the best overall value to the government. In making this comparison the Government is more concerned with obtaining superior Technical (Factor I), Past Performance Confidence (Factor II), than making the award to the lowest price (Factor III) to the Government. However, the Government may not make an award at a significantly higher price to the Government to achieve slightly superior technical or past performance (see paragraph 1 of price factor below.) III. EVALUATION FACTORS A. Factor I – Technical Grading Criteria: Inherent in a trade-off 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 offer, the offeror may receive a higher rating. Offerors are on notice that innovations, well documented technical, improved approach and extensive quality control plan will be considered “strengths.” 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. The following Factor (I) and Sub-factors shall be rated individually with these ratings used to determine and overall rating for Technical. The sub-factors below will be evaluated in descending order of importance, the Technical sub-factors are: 1. Sub-factor (1) Technical Approach: 1.1 The Government will evaluate technical approach to determine offeror’s overall understanding and capability to successfully provide required services in accordance with the performance work statement. The contractor will be rated on their ability to provide Drop Zone Training Areas suitable a for Premeditated Personnel Parachute Operations (P3) and packing and briefing facilities. In determining which rating to apply to the technical approach Sub-factor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to meet stated objectives. The government shall also evaluate the approach and determine how well it aligns with graduate level educational standards and maintaining those standards through the period of performance. Table 1 Combined Technical/Risk Rating Rating Description Outstanding Offer meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. Good Offer meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Offer contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Acceptable Offer meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offset or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. Marginal Offer does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The offer has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Unacceptable Offer does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Offer is un-awardable. 2. Sub-factor (2) Quality Control plan: The Government will evaluate the quality control plan self-monitoring quality assurance methods, performance measurement metrics, compliance with the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) and PWS and methodology for resolution of any quality discrepancies, to include the ability to incorporate and address unplanned events and circumstances. 3. Unacceptable Rating. Any offer receiving a score of “unacceptable” in a factor or any sub factor may render the entire offer ineligible for award. B. Factor II – Past Performance 1. Past Performance Evaluation 1.1 Each offeror will be given two ratings- one for relevancy and one for confidence. The relevancy rating will be incorporated in the confidence rating. The more relevant the past performance data submitted is to this work effort, the higher the government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform will be. 1.2 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. 1.3 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. 1.4 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 quote of an offeror with no relevant past performance history, while rated Neutral in past performance, may not represent the most advantageous offer to the Government, and thus, may be an unsuccessful offer when compared to the quotes of other offerors. 1.5 The Government shall evaluate the offeror’s past performance on similar or directly-related work performed within the past three years (similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to that detailed in the Statement of Work). Past performance shall be evaluated based on Relevancy (the less relevant the past performance, the lower the score), as well as Confidence (timeliness, quality, cost control, and customer satisfaction as indicated by the questionnaire). Past Performance references may include federal, state, or local government and private contracts performed by the offeror that were similar in nature for this effort being evaluated. 1.6 Past performance may be demonstrated from an individual prior contract or effort, or by aggregating multiple prior contracts or efforts of same or similar scope to that which is described in the solicitation. However, the government will give greater consideration to individual prior contracts or efforts of the same or similar scope, magnitude and/or complexity to that which is described in the solicitation. 1.7 The Government may take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, and teaming partners/subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the procurement. 1.8 In accordance with FAR 15.305 (a) (2) (i), the Government may consider in its evaluation, the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the offeror’s performance. 1.9 In determining Confidence, the Government shall consider how well the contractor has performed on previous contracts in areas such as timeliness, quality, cost control, and customer satisfaction. 1.10 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 offer may not be eligible for award. 2. Past Performance Ratings: 2.1 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Table 2 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Rating Definition Very Relevant Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Relevant Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Somewhat Relevant Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Not Relevant 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. 2.3 Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Table 3 Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Definition 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. No Confidence Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Unknown Confidence (Neutral) 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. 2.4 Unacceptable Rating. Any quote receiving a score of “unacceptable” in a factor or any sub-factor may render the entire quote ineligible for award. C. Factor III – Price 1. Although price is less significant than the other factors, it should not be ignored. The degree of its importance will increase with the degree of equality of offers in relation to Technical and Past Performance. Conversely, the significance of price will decrease when it is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the government. 2. The burden of proof for cost credibility rests with the offeror. Offerors are cautioned that to the extent proposed costs appear unrealistic; the Government may infer either a lack of understanding of the requirements, increased risk of performance, or lack of credibility on the part of the offeror. (End of provision) This announcement will close at 9:00 am PST on 18 MARCH 2021. The Contact Specialist Angel PinaHardin can be reached at email Angelina.pinahardin@navy.mil using subject line: RFQ N00244-21-Q-0098 Drop Zone Training Areas. Oral communications are not acceptable in response to this notice. All responsible sources may submit a quote which shall be considered by the agency. System for Award Management (SAM). Bidders 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/. All quotes shall include price(s), F.O.B. Destination, a point of contact, name and phone number, GSA contract number if applicable and business size. ******* End of Combined Synopsis/Solicitation ********