Inactive Total Small Business Set-Aside (FAR 19.5)

Summary of Changes: Amend 1 (4.16.2025) - Proposal due date corrected. Proposals are due by 0800 HRS 28 APR 2025. Amend 2 (4.22.2025) - Lyndon S. Jagroop's last name is corrected from "Jagroup" to Jag... Summary of Changes: Amend 1 (4.16.2025) - Proposal due date corrected. Proposals are due by 0800 HRS 28 APR 2025. Amend 2 (4.22.2025) - Lyndon S. Jagroop's last name is corrected from "Jagroup" to Jagroop. Amend 3 (4.22.2025) - Question and Answer document attached. Amend 4 (4.22.2025) - Updated Question and Answer document (version 2) attached. Amend 5 (4.23.2025) - Updated Question and Answer document (version 3) attached. Combined Synopsis/Solicitation (i) This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in FAR 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. (ii) This solicitation, number W911QY-25-R-TSTS, is issued as a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract for technical sensory training sessions. U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command – Soldier Center (DEVCOM SC) requires technical sensory training to induct ten (10) new panel members into an existing sensory team of government personnel panelists, and then to calibrate the entire team through structured training sessions. The purpose of this project is to formally integrate new panel members into the existing team of trained government personnel sensory panelists, and to calibrate the entire team to consistently achieve statistically relevant product reviews of military rations. Please reference the Statement of Work (SOW) and other documents attached at the bottom of this posting for further description of the Government’s requirement. NOTE: "Exhibit A - DD 1423 CDRL Data Item No. A0001 Qauterly Reports" may only be viewable in Adobe Acrobat. (iii) The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) Number 2025-03 effective 17 January 2025. (iv) This is a 100% small business set-aside. The associated North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 611430 - Professional and Management Development Training with a small business size standard is $15.0 million in average annual receipts. The applicable PSC is U099 – Education/Training- Other. (v) Line item numbers, items, quantities, and units of measure (UoM) are to be as follows: CLIN 0001 – Base CLIN for the initial training session, two (2) full training days. QTY: 1. UoM: Job. CLIN 0002 – Base CLIN for the follow-up training session, two (2) full training days. QTY: 1. UoM: Job. CLIN 0003 – Base CLIN for the half-day training sessions. QTY: 5. UoM: Job. CLIN 0004 – Base CLIN for monitoring homework assignments between training sessions. QTY: 1. UoM: Job. CLIN 0005 – Base CLIN for travel (in accordance with SOW section 5). QTY: 1. UoM: Job. CLIN 0006 – Base CLIN for supplies/groceries (in accordance with SOW section 6). QTY: 1. UoM: Job. CLIN 0007 – Base CLIN for Quarterly Status Reports (in accordance with SOW section 9, and Exhibit A). QTY: 5. UoM: Each. Not separately priced (NSP). (vi) This combined synopsis/solicitation requires registration with the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to award, pursuant to applicable regulations and guidelines. Registration information can be found at www.sam.gov. (vii) Performance is required over the course of approximately fifteen (15) months after award at Combat Feeding Division, DEVCOM Soldier Center, 10 General Greene Ave Building 36, Room E136, Sensory Lab, Natick, MA 01760. Delivery, Inspection, and Acceptance will be by the Government at FOB Destination. (viii) The provision at 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial, applies to this acquisition and is incorporated by reference into this RFP. (ix) Evaluation Factors for Award BASIS OF AWARD The Government anticipates a single award resulting from this requirement. Award will be made to the “responsible” Offeror whose proposal conforming to the solicitation represents the best overall value to the Government, price, and other factors considered. See FAR Subpart 9.104 for a description of the standards prospective contractors must meet to be determined “responsible.” Award will be based on the results of a complete and thorough Government evaluation of proposals in accordance with (IAW) this RFP and the evaluation criteria set forth herein. The Government may evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions; therefore, the initial offer should contain the best offer, however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. If award will be made without discussions, Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of the proposal or resolve minor or clerical errors IAW FAR Subpart 15.306(a). If awarding without discussions, the Contracting officer will make a best value decision based upon the evaluation of the initial proposal as submitted. The Government also reserves the right to not award any contract if no proposals are considered to be in the best interest of the Government. In accordance with FAR Subpart 15.204-5(c), the RFP will identify all significant factors that will affect contract award by clearly stating their relative importance IAW FAR 15.304(d) using one of the phrases in FAR 15.304(e). For this procurement, it has been determined that all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration being given to the following three (3) Evaluation Factors; Factor 1: Technical, Factor 2: Past or Current Performance, Factor 3: Price. In determining the best value to the Government, the relative importance of the non-price factors is as such; Factor 1: Technical is more important than Factor 2: Past or Current Performance, which is more important than Factor 3: Price. Business judgments and tradeoffs will be used to determine the proposals offering the best value to the Government. In determining the best value to the Government, the Government need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the best value decisions. While the Government evaluator and Contracting Officer will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. In this regard, the quality of the service will be addressed through consideration of two non-price evaluation factors: the Offeror’s technical approach along with prior experience and past or current performance. A. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED The following Evaluation Factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is the Best Value to the Government based on an integrated assessment of the Three Evaluation Factors described below. Factor 1: Technical Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price B. EVALUATION APPROACH All proposals shall be subject to a review and assessment against all source selection criteria stated herein. The evaluation process will rate the Offeror’s ability to perform the work IAW all aspects of requirements outlined in the solicitation and associated attachments, as well as the fair and reasonableness of the proposed price. The evaluator will provide a written evaluation of each proposal against the factors established in the solicitation. The purpose of the technical proposal is to assess the Offeror’s ability to provide technical sensory training to new and current panelists to satisfy the Government’s requirements. A combined technical/risk rating will be assigned for the technical proposal, which will include consideration of risk in conjunction with strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The purpose of evaluating past performance volume will be to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to meet the Statement of Work (SOW) requirements, based on a demonstrated record of performance. A performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned for the Past Performance, which will take into consideration the currency and relevance of the information, quality of the Offeror’s past or current performance, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Offeror’s past or current performance. The Price will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer and/or Price Analyst IAW the evaluation criteria established in Factor 3 Contract Price. The respective evaluator will rate each Factor for each proposal submitted and will prepare a report. The Government will document the evaluation by providing a short narrative of the evaluation of each Offeror’s proposal in terms of the evaluation criteria and proposed strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. These reports will be presented to the Contracting Officer to assist in the award decision. The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any proposal containing weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. The judgement of such correction potential is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competition and, thus, from contract award. To the extent deemed necessary at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer, written Items for Discussion (IFD) will be issued as Evaluation Notices (ENs) to remaining Offerors to further investigate any weaknesses, deficiencies, or other subjects identified by the evaluator as germane to the evaluation process. These ENs are considered exchanges/discussions in accordance with FAR 15.306(d). The Contracting Officer may also issue ENs relating to any matter that requires written revisions to a proposal for which a binding agreement is required/desired. The criteria utilized for evaluating the Offeror’s proposal is as defined below: 1. Factor 1: Technical This factor assesses the risk of unsuccessful performance based on the Offeror's technical proposal and its alignment with the SOW. While alignment with all aspects of the SOW will be considered, the evaluation will prioritize the following: • Trainer Qualifications: The qualifications of the proposed training professional(s) will be evaluated against the requirements outlined in SOW Section 8. • Training Approach: The proposed training approach will be evaluated on its plan to cover all training topics laid out in the SOW, and on its plan for establishing reference standards for sensory attributes (e.g. off-notes, textures, mouthfeels, intensities) using commercial food products. The proposed detailed and timed agenda for each training session will also be evaluated as part of the training approach as well as for consistency with the basic training outline provided in SOW Section 2(b). 2. Factor 2: Past or Current Performance The Offerors and subcontractors past or current performance with Government and industry will be evaluated to assess the relative risks associated with the Offerors likelihood of success in meeting the requirements stated in this solicitation. Specific areas of past or current performance examined will include demonstrated technical and schedule performance, cost control, general responsiveness to contract requirements, customer satisfaction, customer focus, and customer references, if applicable. Past or current performance information, which demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to meet the requirements stated in this solicitation and TDP, will also be considered. Additionally, any and all contracts terminated in whole or in part during the past five (5) years, to include those currently in the process of such termination should be identified. Offerors are advised that the Government may contact any of the references the Offeror provides, may contact internal or external sources regarding past contract performance information, and reserves the right to use any information received as part of our evaluation. There are three aspects to the past or current performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). These aspects are combined to establish one Performance Confidence Assessment rating for each Offeror. Recency Assessment: The first step in the overall Past or Current Performance evaluation is to assess the recency of the Offeror’s past or current performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past or current performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past or current performance information. Relevancy Assessment: The second step in the overall Past or Current Performance evaluation is to assess the relevancy of the Offeror’s past or current performance. Relevancy, as it pertains to past or current performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past or current performance examples and the solicitation requirements. With respect to relevance, past or current performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past or current performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Relevancy will be considered for similar or relevant efforts, defined as those contracts encompassing in scope the testing of CB clothing ensembles and material components similar to the effort required by this contract. Quality Assessment: The next step in the overall Past or Current Performance evaluation is to assess the overall quality of the Offeror’s past or current performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant. The team will review all past or current performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, contractor performance, and usefulness of the information. This information will be incorporated into the performance confidence assessment. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and other sources will form the basis for this assessment. Performance Confidence Assessment: With the recency, relevancy, and quality of the Offeror’s past or current performance considered, the final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus Performance Confidence Assessment for the Offeror. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. The Government will consider whether the past performance cited in the Offeror’s proposal is relevant should the Offeror subsequently be awarded a contract. Accordingly, any past performance which is identified in the Offerors Past Performance Factor proposal that is not supported with the information requested, or if any other proposal volume indicates the cited past performance is not intended to be used by the Offeror during contract performance may be determined not relevant. In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past or current contract performance or where past or current contract performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past or current performance. In this case, the Offeror’s past or current performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral” which is neither favorable nor unfavorable. 3. Factor 3: Price The Offeror’s price Proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR Subpart 15.404-1 Proposal Analysis Techniques in order to determine the reasonableness of the proposal prices. In the event adequate competition does not emerge in response to the solicitation, the Contracting Officer may require certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4. (x) The clause at 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions - Commercial Items, applies to this acquisition and is incorporated by reference into this RFP. (xi) The clause at 52.212-5 (Dev), Contract Terms And Conditions Required To Implement Statutes Or Executive Orders—Commercial Products And Commercial Services (MAR 2025) (DEVIATION 2025-O0003/4), applies to this acquisition and is incorporated by reference into this RFP. The following additional FAR clauses cited in the clause are applicable to the acquisition: 52.203-19, Prohibition on Requiring Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements or Statements (JAN 2017) 52.204-23, Prohibition on Contracting for Hardware, Software, and Services Developed or Provided by Kaspersky Lab and Other Covered Entities (DEC 2023) 52.204-25, Prohibition of Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment (NOV 2021) 52.204-27, Prohibition on a ByteDance Covered Application (JUN 2023) 52.209-6, Protecting the Government’s Interest When Subcontracting with Contractors Debarred, Suspended, or Proposed for Debarment (JAN 2025) 52.209-10, Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations (NOV 2015) 52.219-6, Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside (NOV 2020) 52.222-3, Convict Labor (JUN 2003) 52.222-36, Equal Opportunity for Workers with Disabilities (JUN 2020) 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards (AUG 2018) 52.222-42, Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires (MAY 2014) 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons (NOV 2021) 52.222-55, Minimum Wages for Contractor Workers Under Executive Order 14026 (JAN 2022) 52.222-62, Paid Sick Leave Under Executive Order 13706 (JAN 2022) 52.226-6, Promoting Excess Food Donation to Nonprofit Organizations (JUN 2020) 52.223-23 (Dev), Sustainable Products and Services (MAR 2025) (DEVIATION 2025-O0004) 52.226-8, Encouraging Contractor Policies to Ban Text Messaging While Driving (MAY 2024) 52.232-33, Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer—System for Award Management (OCT 2018) 52.232-40, Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors (MAR 2023) 52.233-3, Protest after Award (AUG 1996) 52.233-4, Applicable Law for Breach of Contract Claim (OCT 2004) 52.240-1, Prohibition on Unmanned Aircraft Systems Manufactured or Assembled by American Security Drone Act—Covered Foreign Entities (NOV 2024) (xii) The following additional FAR and DFARS provisions and clauses apply to this acquisition and are incorporated by reference: 52.204-7, System for Award Management (NOV 2024) 52.204-13, System for Award Management Maintenance (OCT 2018) 52.204-16, Commercial and Government Entity Code Reporting (AUG 2020) 52.204-17, Ownership or Control of Offeror (AUG 2020) 52.204-18, Commercial and Government Entity Code Maintenance (AUG 2020) 52.204-20, Predecessor of Offeror (AUG 2020) 52.204-21, Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems (NOV 2021) 52.204-24, Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment (NOV 2021) 52.204-26, Covered Telecommunications Equipment or Services—Representation (OCT 2020) 52.212-3 (Dev), Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (MAR 2025) (DEVIATION 2025-O0003) 52.232-39, Unenforceability of Unauthorized Obligations (JUN 2013) 52.252-1, Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference (FEB 1998) 52.252-2, Clauses Incorporated by Reference (FEB 1998) 52.252-5, Authorized Deviations in Provisions (NOV 2020) 52.252-6, Authorized Deviations in Clause (NOV 2020) 252.201-7000, Contracting Officer's Representative (DEC 1991) 252.203-7000 , Requirements Relating to Compensation of Former DoD Officials (SEP 2011) 252.203-7002, Requirement to Inform Employees of Whistleblower Rights (DEC 2022) 252.203-7005 , Representation Relating to Compensation of Former DoD Officials (SEP 2022) 252.204-7003 , Control of Government Personnel Work Product (APR 1992) 252.204-7008 , Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense Information Controls (OCT 2016) 252.204-7012 (Dev), Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting (DEVIATION 2024-O0013, Rev 1) (MAY 2024) 252.204-7016, Covered Defense Telecommunications Equipment or Services—Representation (DEC 2019) 252.204-7017, Prohibition on the Acquisition of Covered Defense Telecommunications Equipment or Services—Representation (MAY 2021) 252.204-7018 Prohibition on the Acquisition of Covered Defense Telecommunications Equipment or Services (JAN 2023) 252.204-7019, Notice of NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements (NOV 2023) 252.204-7020 , NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements (NOV 2023) 252.225-7000 Buy American--Balance of Payments Program Certificate—Basic (FEB 2024) 252.225-7007 , Prohibition on Acquisition of Certain Items from Communist Chinese Military Companies (DEC 2018) 252.225-7012, Preference for Certain Domestic Commodities (APR 2022) 252.225-7048, Export-Controlled Items (JUN 2013) 252.225-7055, Representation Regarding Business Operations with the Maduro Regime (MAY 2022) 252.225-7056 , Prohibition Regarding Business Operations with the Maduro Regime (JAN 2023) 252.225-7059, Prohibition on Certain Procurements from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region–Representation (JUN 2023) 252.225-7060 , Prohibition on Certain Procurements from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (JUN 2023) 252.225-7972 , Prohibition on the Procurement of Foreign-Made Unmanned Aircraft Systems (AUG 2024) (DEVIATION 2024-O0014) 252.225-7973, Prohibition on the Procurement of Foreign-Made Unmanned Aircraft Systems—Representation (AUG 2024) (DEVIATION 2024-O0014) 252.232-7003 , Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving Reports (DEC 2018) 252.232-7006, Wide Area WorkFlow Payment Instructions (JAN 2023) 252.232-7010, Levies on Contract Payments (DEC 2006) 252.237-7010, Prohibition on Interrogation of Detainees by Contractor Personnel (JAN 2023) 252.244-7000 , Subcontracts for Commercial Products or Commercial Services (NOV 2023) 252.247-7023, Transportation of Supplies by Sea—Basic (OCT 2024) This contract incorporates one or more clauses by reference, the full text of a clause may be accessed electronically at the follow urls: https://www.acquisition.gov/browse/index/far https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/class_deviations.html (xiii) A Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) rating is not applicable to this acquisition. (xiv) Proposals shall be submitted electronically to BOTH Edmund J. Bousaleh via email at edmund.j.bousaleh.civ@army.mil AND to Lyndon S. Jagroop via email at lyndon.s.jagroop.civ@army.mil. All proposals are due Monday 28 April 2025 by 0800 hours ET. Proposals will only be accepted electronically via the email addresses provided above. All questions related to this RFP shall be submitted in writing not later than Wednesday 23 April 2025 by 1100 hours ET to BOTH Edmund J. Bousaleh via email at edmund.j.bousaleh.civ@army.mil AND to Lyndon S. Jagroop via email at lyndon.s.jagroop.civ@army.mil. (xvi) For information regarding this combined synopsis/solicitation, please contact: Edmund J. Bousaleh, Contract Specialist Email: edmund.j.bousaleh.civ@army.mil (preferred) Phone Number: 520-692-1438