Inactive

Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Groton, CT (SSGR) intends to award a firm fixed price (FFP) contract for the Manufacture of Spud Rails and Securing Brackets and Replace Spud Rail Securing Brackets on the ... Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Groton, CT (SSGR) intends to award a firm fixed price (FFP) contract for the Manufacture of Spud Rails and Securing Brackets and Replace Spud Rail Securing Brackets on the Shippingport (ARDM 4), a Navy Floating Dry Dock, in accordance with the attached Statement of Work and corresponding references/plans. The Shippingport is located at a pier at Subbase New London, Connecticut – physically located in Groton, CT. Solicitation Number: N62789-24-R-0012 is issued as a Request for Proposal (RFP). The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through the Federal Acquisition Circular, FAC 2024-06, effective August 29, 2024. This requirement is being solicited on a full and open basis. NAICS Code: 336611 // Size Standard: 1,300. The intended period of performance is 15 November 2024 to 31 July 2025. Attached to this solicitation is an estimated schedule of events for contractor planning purposes. SSGR highly encourages prospective vendors schedule a site visit with the Government prior to submitting a quote given the magnitude of this effort. The date of the site visit shall be mutually agreed to and occur during the solicitation window. The site visit request should be submitted to the POCs: stephanie.l.neale.civ@us.navy.mil and andrea.a.cook.civ@us.navy.mil. Each vendor is permitted two site visits, scheduled at least two business days in advance. Given the document sizing of the references/plans contained in the statement of work, vendors may request to receive a copy of them at the site visit, if so desired. Please provide a quote broken down in the following manner. Please include as much detail as possible in the quote to assist in evaluation and determining acceptability: Manufacture Spud Rails, QTY. 3 – Vendor to state unit cost of each rail and total cost for 3. Each: $X.XX Total: $X.XX Manufacture Spud Rail Securing Brackets, QTY. 3 - Vendor to state unit cost of each bracket and total cost for 3. Each: $X.XX Total: $X.XX Remove & Replace Spud Rail Securing Brackets – Vendor to break down cost of removal and cost of reinstallation of 3 brackets + testing. Cost for removal: $X.XX Cost of reinstallation: $X.XX Total: $X.XX Shipping/Delivery of Rails & Brackets: $X.XX. If two deliveries are anticipated, state cost of each. Contractor Travel – vendor to state anticipated dates of travel, how many people will travel, plus job title of each person. Plus include a breakdown cost of travel (flight, vehicle etc.), meals/incidentals, hotel/lodging. Anticipated dates of travel: X to X Qty. of travelers & titles: X Travel: $X.XX Meals & Incidentals: $X.XX Hotel/Lodging: $X.XX TOTAL COST OF JOB: $X.XX A subcontracting plan is required for this procurement and shall be submitted at the time of the proposal. The potential award will be to the responsible vendor that can satisfy this requirement in conformance with the solicitation and is determined to be the best overall value to the Government, price and other factors considered. In determining the best overall response, the combined non-cost/price factors (qualification, technical acceptability and past performance) are more important than the cost/price factor; however, cost/price is still a significant factor. The Government may select for award the offeror whose price is not necessarily the lowest, but whose quotation is more advantageous to the Government and warrants the additional cost. The evaluation factors considered for this award are listed below and also contained in section M of the solicitation. Offers that take exception to any performance criteria are unacceptable. This acquisition will be competed using the Best Value continuum as further described in FAR 15.304. This is a Trade-off type of competitive procurement. All Proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria: Qualification, Technical Comprehension, Past Performance and Cost. A description of relative weight of each criterion and rating follows. Weight. The relative weight of each criterion is as follows: Rank 1: Qualification/ normalized weight .4 Rank 2: Technical Comprehension / normalized weight .3 Rank 3: Past Performance / normalized weight .2 Rank 4: Cost / normalized weight .1 TOTAL Rank of 10 / Normalized Weight of 1.0 Ratings. Each criterion will be given a rating of 1, 2 or 3, with three being the most favorable rating as it denotes “Acceptable”: Unacceptable, Rating of 1. The Government has low confidence that the offeror understands the requirement, has given few, if any, assurances to performance and qualification, proposes an unacceptable approach and/or has put forth an unacceptable cost proposal. A rating of 1 signifies that offeror will not be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention. Marginal, Rating of 2. The Government has some confidence that the offeror understands the requirement, has given some assurances to performance and qualification, proposes a mediocre approach and has put forth a mediocre cost proposal. A rating of 2 signifies the offeror will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention. Acceptable, Rating of 3. The Government has high confidence that the offeror understands the requirement, has given adequate assurances to performance and qualification, proposes a sound approach and has put forth a reasonable cost proposal. A rating of 3 signifies the offeror will be successful in performing the contract with little to no Government intervention. Technical Factors. a. Qualification. Relative Rank: 1 / Normalized Weight: .40 1. Qualification relates to the credentials, capability and eligibility of an offeror to receive this award. For this criterion, the offeror shall provide the Government with documentation of its NAVSEA approved non-destructive testing (NDT) qualification in accordance with the specification. 2. The offeror shall provide the Government with documentation of weld qualifications in accordance with the specification. 3. The offeror shall demonstrate that it otherwise has the ability to successfully complete this requirement. This means the vendor has demonstrated it has adequate financial resources, the personnel, machinery and building or operating space sufficient to successfully perform under the terms of the contract. 4. The offeror shall otherwise be eligible for Government award. Specifically, they must have an active SAM.gov registration and not have any active exclusions listed in SAM.gov or be precluded from award by another means. 5. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s qualification will ensure success of the acquisition. The rating will be made based on the following chart. Rating / Adjectival Rating / Description 1 / Unacceptable / Proposal/Offeror does not hold the required credentials and/or have the ability (financial, personnel, machinery, building space etc.) to satisfy the requirement(s) and/or is not eligible to receive a Government award by another means. Failure to prove qualification is a deficiency and is un-awardable. 2 / Marginal / Proposal/Offeror may possess the required credentials and/or have the ability (financial, personnel, machinery, building space etc.) to satisfy the requirement(s) and/or the ability to receive a Government award, but the proposal/offeror has not adequately proven the same. 3 / Acceptable / Proposal/Offeror has proven it holds the required credentials, the ability (financial, personnel, machinery, building space etc.) to satisfy the requirement(s) and has the ability to receive a Government award. b. Technical Comprehension. Relative Rank: 2 / Normalized Weight .30 1. Technical comprehension relates to an offeror’s technical understanding of the requirement. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and risk of a proposal. The offeror shall demonstrate in its proposal that it possesses the necessary skillset to technically understand and execute the requirement. 2. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s technical comprehension will ensure success of the acquisition. The rating will be made based on the following chart. Rating / Adjectival Rating / Description 1 / Unacceptable / Proposal does not meet the technical requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable. 2 / Marginal / Proposal demonstrates an adequate technical approach and understanding of requirements. 3 . Acceptable / Proposal Demonstrates a successful technical approach and understanding of the requirements. Non-Technical Factors. a. Past Performance. Relative Rank: 3 / Normalized Weight: .20 1. Past performance relates to how well a contractor has performed in the past. Evaluation of the offerors past performance will be based on the summary provided by the offeror with respect to their most recent 3 contracts. Additionally, the Government will conduct a review of the offerors Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), SAM.gov and the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS). The Government may use any other source other than the ones listed to determine past performance. 2. An offeror’s lack of past performance must be treated as an unknown performance risk, having no positive or negative evaluation significance. 3. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s past performance will ensure success of the acquisition. The rating will be made based on the following chart. Rating / Adjectival Rating / Description 1 / Unacceptable / Offeror has an unacceptable or undesirable past performance history as demonstrated by CPARS, SAM.gov, eSRS and/or the Offerors Summary (or by another allowable means). An unacceptable or undesirable past performance is un-awardable. 2 / Marginal / Offeror has an adequate past performance history or has no past performance history. 3 / Acceptable / Offeror has a successful past performance history as demonstrated by CPARS, SAM.gov, eSRS and/or the Offerors Summary (or by another allowable means). b. Cost. Relative Rank: 4 / Normalized Weight: .10 1. Cost relates to the cost analysis that will be performed in reviewing each proposal. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1, each offeror’s cost proposal will be evaluated for overall reasonableness, realism (each individual line item) and affordability. The Government may use various cost analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price, which includes verifying cost or pricing data and evaluation of individual cost elements. 2. The offeror must show cost reasonableness and realism in its proposal by clearly showing justification for costs. Each proposal will be independently reviewed, reviewed against other offers received and compared to the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). 3. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposed cost will ensure success of the acquisition. The rating will be made based on the following chart. Rating / Adjectival Rating / Description 1 / Unacceptable / Proposal cost is not fair, reasonable and/or justified for the work being performed and is considered un-awardable. 2 / Marginal / Proposal cost is marginal for the work being performed. 3 / Acceptable / Proposal cost is fair, reasonable and justified and provides the best price for the Navy. The Government will evaluate the total offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all line items. Evaluation of all line items will not obligate the Government to award all line items. Proposals are due prior to 12:00 P.M., EST on 15 October 2024. Late submissions will not be accepted. Offers should be submitted via electronic commerce. The electronic address for receipt of offers is: andrea.a.cook.civ@us.navy.mil and stephanie.l.neale.civ@us.navy.mil . Offerors should identify the RFP number in the subject line of the email. Offerors are advised to submit electronic documents early and to confirm successful transmission/receipt. The System for Award Management (SAM) is a Government maintained database of companies wanting to do business with the Government. A firm must register and have an active registration in SAM in order to receive a federal award. Register at: https://sam.gov/SAM/pages/public/index.jsf The Government reserves the right to award one line, all line items or any combination thereof. If multiple line items are awarded, costs/prices for each line item will be totaled and the award amount will be based off that total.