SOLICITATION NOTICE
U -- Creative Problem Solving
- Notice Date
- 8/1/2006
- Notice Type
- Solicitation Notice
- NAICS
- 611430
— Professional and Management Development Training
- Contracting Office
- ACA, NRCC, Mission, Building 2796, Fort Eustis, VA 23604
- ZIP Code
- 23604
- Solicitation Number
- W912SU06T0028
- Response Due
- 8/7/2006
- Archive Date
- 10/6/2006
- Small Business Set-Aside
- Total Small Business
- Description
- This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in 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 be issued upon request. Quote Submission: a. This Request for Quotation (RFQ) is being issued in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13 Simplified Acquisition Procedures. The quote shall consist of two sections: Price Quote and the Technical Plan. Total quote is limited to 5 single-sided pages. The original quote may be submitted by mail or electronic mail; facsimile will not be accepted. i. Mail: Department of the Army Northern Region Contracting Center ATTN SFCA NR NRCC/Charles Spicer 2798 Harrison Loop Complex Fort Eustis VA 23604-5538 ii. Email: charles.a.spicer@us.army.mil b. PRICE QUOTE: The RFQ contains a Performance Work Statement (PWS) and request the offeror to submit a firm fixed price quote to provide the services outlined in the Performance Work Statement. C. The Technical Proposal will consist of the offerors outline addressing the Technical Approach, Management and Staffing, and Past Performance. Resume for the instructor/speaker must be included. The Technical Proposal shall not merely offer to perfo rm work in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) but shall outline the actual work proposed as specifically as practical. The PWS reflects the work and objectives of the effort under consideration; therefore, to repeat the PWS without suffi cient elaboration will not be satisfactory. All written documentation will be used to evaluate the RFQ. PROPOSAL EVALUATION PLAN FOR 1. Introduction This plan supports the execution of a performance work statement submitted by TRADOC DCPSIL to the Northern Region Contracting Center, Ft. Eustis, VA. The purpose of the evaluation is to evaluate the offerors responses to determine which proposal is acce ptable to the Government. In performing the evaluation the following will be used: a. The Request for Quotation (RFQ) b. The offerors proposal c. Information obtained through clarification, communications and/or discussion; if they are conducted. The proposal will be reviewed and evaluated in the areas of technical expertise, immediate availability of staff and expertise, experience and price. 2. Rules of Conduct All information contained in proposals, or pertaining to the award process is to be considered source selection sensitive information, and shall be treated as such. Consequently, all source selection personnel will ensure that: a. Details of the acquisition activities, such as evaluation criteria are not made known, wholly or in part to anyone other than authorized personnel. b. No information is to be provided to an individual offeror that may improve its position to the disadvantage of a competitor. 3. Evaluation Process. 3.1 Evaluation Areas and Order of Importance. The evaluation areas and their relative order of importance are as follows: a. Technical expertise b. Past Performance/ Past Experience c. Price All areas will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria specified in appendix B and will be assigned a Performance Evaluation Rating and Proposal Risk Rating using the adjectival rating from appendix A. 3.1.1 Technical Expertise. The Technical Expertise will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria specified in Appendix B and will be assigned an Evaluation rating using the adjectival rating from Appendix A. 3.1.2. Past Performance/Past Experience. The Past Performance/Past Experience will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria specif ied in Appendix B and will be assigned an Evaluation rating using the adjectival rating from Appendix A. If no past performance is obtained a rating of neutral will be assigned. 3.1.3 Price. The pricing schedule of each proposal will be reviewed for completeness to ensure that the offeror has complied with the requirements and that the proposed prices are reasonable and realistic for the proposed effort. It is anticipated that c ompetition will produce both a reasonable and realistic proposed price. Price will be the determining factor if proposals approach equality. 3.2 Evaluation Procedures. Each proposal will be evaluated based on the criteria in appendix B of this document. Evaluator will identify strengths, weaknesses and risks of each proposal, using the evaluation sheets from Appendix A. 3.3 Selection Decision to NRCC, Ft. Eustis, VA. After review of the selection the evaluator will prepare a memorandum documenting the selection for the Contracting Officer, NRCC. Appendix A To Proposal Evaluation Plan Adjectival Ratings 1. Introduction. This sheet supports the evaluation of the proposals. The evaluator will use their best judgment and technical expertise in evaluating the proposal. 2. THE FOLLOWING ADJECTIVAL RATINGS WILL BE USED: Excellent: Excellent in all respects; offers one or more significant advantages not offset by disadvantages; very good probability of success with overall low degree of risk in meeting the Governments requirements. Good: High quality in most respects; offers one or more advantages not offset by disadvantages; good probability of success with overall low to moderate degree of risk in meeting the Governments requirements. Satisfactory: Adequate quality; any advantages are offset by disadvantages; fair probability of success with overall moderate to high degree of risk in meeting the Governments requirements. Susceptible to Being Made Acceptable: Overall quality cannot be determined because of errors, omissions or deficiencies which are capable of being corrected without a major rewrite or revision of the proposal. Unsatisfactory: A proposal which contains major errors, omissions or deficiencies, or an unacceptably high degree of risk in meeting the Governments requirements; and these conditions cannot be corrected without a major rewrite or revision of the proposa l. Appendix B To Proposal Evaluation Plan Evaluation Factors EVALUATION FACTORS General. The areas of the offer evaluation are (a) Technical, (b) Past Performance/Past Experience, and (c) Price. It is the responsibility of the evaluator to evaluate each Offerors proposal and assign overall adjectival ratings of E xcellent, Good, Satisfactory, Susceptible to Being Made Acceptable or Unsatisfactory to each evaluated proposal. FACTOR 1-Technical Subfactor a. Does the offeror have a good understanding of the Performance Work Statement requirements Subfactor b. Does the offeror have recent and substantial experience with the Army Subfactor c. Can the offeror provide skilled and experienced functional subject matter expertise? FACTOR 2- Past Performance/ Past Experience- Subfactors to be evaluated under Past Performance/ Past Experience include the following. (Slightly less important than Technical) Subfactor a. Similar Past performance/ Past Experience. Does the offeror display relevant knowledge and experience to solicitation requirements. Subfactor b. Overall Past Performance/ Past Experience - Does the offerors past performance history indicate a pattern of conformance to contract technical requirements in previous procurements? FACTOR 3. Price (determining factor if proposals approach technical equality) Price The price will be evaluated for accuracy and reasonableness. PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT PRESENTING CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING FOR TWO ONE-DAY TRAINING COURSES 1. PURPOSE: This perfo rmance work statement (PWS) specifies non-personal services required to provide civilian and military employees of HQ TRADOC with non-recurring training for professional development. Specifically, the contractor will provide two one-day courses at Fort Mo nroe, VA covering Creative Problem Solving. 2. BACKGROUND: The TRADOC staff routinely conducts data analyses and provides relevant products to the Command Group for senior leader decision-making across the Command. This training will improve leader development and provide creative ways to problem solve for the headquarters staff. 3. SCOPE: This effort shall support TRADOC staff and command activities. The contractor shall provide a course instructor/speaker for two one-day classes. The course will focus on creative problem solving and how to apply them in decision-making process es. Course content should be tailored to maximize applicability to the target audience which will consist predominantly of Army officers and senior NCOs, and Department of the Army civilians. The contractor shall provide each attendee with a participant kit which will include all materials necessary for completion of the course. 4. TASKINGS: 4.1. Conduct two one-day courses, back-to-back, on creative problem solving for seventy-five (75) attendees in each session. 4.2. Provide materials, as applicable, for each attendee. 4.3. The contractor shall ship participant materials for the courses at least one week prior to the start date of the first session. 4.4. Permit HQ TRADOC to record the presentation for the benefit of Army leaders who are unable to attend the course due to scheduling conflicts. Tape will not be distributed and will solely be for internal use by HQ TRADOC at Fort Monroe. 5. PLACE OF PERFORMANCE: The contractor shall perform tasks identified under this contract at Bay Breeze Community Center, Fort Monroe, VA. 6. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE. The period of performance for this contract shall commence on 13 through 14 September 2006. 7. DELIVERABLES: The Contractor shall develop and deliver the products listed above in paragraphs 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 to: HQ TRADOC DCSPIL 5 North Gate Rd, Bldg 5E, Rm 301 ATTN: Ruth Miller (ATBO-S) Fort Monroe, VA 23651-1048 8. SECURITY: This course is unclassified. 9. CONTRACTOR IDENTIFICATION: 9.1. Identification Badges 9.1.1. The contractor shall provide each employee an identification (ID) badge on the contract start date or on employment start date. The ID badge shall be made of a nonmetallic material. The badge shall be easily readable and include employee name, c ompany name, functional areas of assignment, and color photograph. Also, the contractor shall comply with the DoD regulation (AR 25-1 and 25-2) concerning the acquisition of Common Access Cards (CAC) for all contractor personnel, in accordance with the policies and procedures currently in use at Fort Monroe, VA. 9.1.2. The contractor personnel shall wear the ID badge at all times when performing work under the contract to include attending government meetings and conferences, unless otherwise specified in the contract. Each contractor employee shall wear the ID badge in a conspicuous place on the front of the exterior clothing and above the waist except when safety or health reasons prohibit such placement. 9.1.3. The contractor personnel shall identify themselves as contractor employees when answering government telephones. 9.2. Electronic mail (e-mail) 9.2.1. When contractor personnel send e-mail messages to government personnel while performing this contract, the contractors e-mail address shall include the company name together with the persons name. 9.2.2. When it is necessary for contractor personnel to have a user address on a government computer, the government shall ensure that persons e-mail address includes the name of the company and indicates contractor.
- Place of Performance
- Address: ACA, NRCC, Mission Building 2796, Fort Eustis VA
- Zip Code: 23604
- Country: US
- Zip Code: 23604
- Record
- SN01103225-W 20060803/060801221137 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |