SOLICITATION NOTICE
69 -- Horus Training Video
- Notice Date
- 9/13/2011
- Notice Type
- Combined Synopsis/Solicitation
- Contracting Office
- US Army, Army Contracting Command, ACC New Jersey Contracting Center, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey 07806-5000
- ZIP Code
- 07806-5000
- Solicitation Number
- W15QKN-11-T-F012
- Response Due
- 9/29/2011
- Archive Date
- 10/29/2011
- Point of Contact
- Thoguluva Gloria, Contract Specialist, 973-724-5366
- E-Mail Address
-
Thoguluva Gloria
(gloria.thoguluva@us.army.mil)
- 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; quotes are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. This solicitation and any resultant award will be processed in accordance with FAR 13 Simplified Acquisition Procedures. Solicitation number W15QKN-11-T-F012 is being issued as a request for quotation (RFQ). The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-53, effective 04 August 2011. This requirement has been set-aside for small business under NAICS code 512110 with a small business size standard of $29,500,000. The U.S. Army Contracting Command-Picatinny-Soldier Weapons, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000, on behalf of PM Soldier Weapons has a requirement for a New Equipment Training (NET) video that adequately explains and trains the intricacies of the Horus H58 reticle and the practical applications of Horus style reticles in accordance with the attached Statement of Objectives (SOO) - Attachment 1. The work will include shooting all content as detailed in the SOO (Attachment 1) and will be delivered in a DVD format for distribution at the discretion of the Department of Defense (DOD). The contractor will produce a one-hour DVD on the Horus H58, and will deliver 1500 finished DVDs with onscreen graphics and complete DVD Packaging. The contactor will provide a 3-camera shoot in High Definition video for the ultimate clarity in viewing. The contractor shall also provide a printable diagram of the H58 reticle which defines all reticle increments and built in formulas to be used as a supplemental training aid. Please note that pursuant to FAR 52.227-17 the contractor is directed to assign the copyright(s) in any works produced under the subject contract to the United States Government. The anticipated period of performance is from date of award through 150 days after contract award, or sooner. The place of delivery, acceptance and FOB point is: U.S. Army ARDEC SFAE-SDR-IW, Bldg. 151 Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806 Attn: Mike Bozzelli INSTRUCTIONS: Offerors responding to this announcement shall submit their quote in accordance with the attached Instructions to Offerors (Attachment 3). BASIS FOR AWARD: The Government plans to award a single firm fixed price purchase order as a result of this Request for Quotation (RFQ). The evaluation of quotes will be conducted utilizing the Tradeoff Source Selection Process in accordance with FAR 15.101-1. In using the Tradeoff Source Selection approach, the Government seeks to award to an offeror who gives the greatest confidence that it will best meet and/or exceed the requirements. This process allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and cost/price and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal to achieve a best-value contract award. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. The Government intends to award one (1) purchase order as a result of this Request for Quotation (RFQ). EVALUATION FACTORS AND EVALUATION APPROACH AREAS TO BE EVALUATED: Appropriate consideration will be given to the three evaluation factors: Technical, Past Performance and Price. The Technical factor consists of the subfactors identified below. There are no subfactors for Price. Technical Subfactors: Subfactor A: Contract Approach Subfactor B: Equipment and Personnel Subfactor C: Schedule The Technical factor is more important than the Past Performance factor. The Past Performance factor is significantly more important than the Price factor. The Technical subfactors are of equal importance. To receive consideration for award, a final rating of no less than Acceptable must be achieved for all Technical sub-factors. The evaluation process will consider the following: 1.Factor I: Technical - Evaluation of the following technical sub-factors will specifically consider: Technical Subfactor A - Contractual Approach: The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offerors response has adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each objective of the Statement of Objectives has been addressed in the proposal. Technical Subfactor B - Equipment and Personnel: The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror has personnel on hand who adequately demonstrate the level of competence and technical proficiency needed to carry out the objectives called out in the Statement of Objectives. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror has the equipment (or plan and schedule to obtain same) to adequately carry out the objectives listed in the Statement of Objectives. Technical Subfactor C - Schedule: The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror has clearly identified all deliverables and is capable of delivering within the specified times as established in the Contract Data Requirements List. 2.Factor II: Past Performance - The Government shall consider demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the RFQ requirements. There are no subfactors for Past Performance. 3.Factor III: Price - The Government shall determine if the proposed price is fair and reasonable. There are no subfactors for price TECHNICAL EVALUATION: The technical portion of the proposal will be rated by evaluating the technical proposal for strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies, combined with the risks of the proposal. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The Technical factor will be a roll-up of the Technical subfactor ratings. The following rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of the overall Technical Factor rating as well as the individual Technical sub-factors: Color - Blue; Rating - Outstanding; Definition: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. Color - Purple; Rating - Good; Definition: Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Color - Green; Rating - Acceptable; Definition: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. Color - Yellow; Rating - Marginal; Definition: Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Color - Red; Rating - Unacceptable; Definition: Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: 1. Relevancy of a recent effort and 2. Performance level. Relevancy shall consider similarity of service/support and complexity of a performance effort that was executed by the offeror within the last three (3) years of release of this RFQ. The following rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of past performance relevancy: Rating - Relevant; Definition: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Rating - Not Relevant; Definition: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Performance level for each identified relevant and recent effort will be assessed by the Government evaluation team based on data provided by the offeror, the offerors customers via questionnaire (RFQ Attachment 4), and other data sources available to the Government. The evaluation team will review the past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. Each offeror shall be assigned one of the following performance confidence ratings: Rating - Substantial Confidence; Definition: Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Rating - Satisfactory Confidence; Definition: Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Rating - Limited Confidence; Definition: Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Rating - No Confidence; Definition: 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. Rating - Unknown Confidence (Neutral); Definition: 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. PRICE EVALUATION: The total evaluated price will be used in the best value determination. The Government will evaluate the overall total quoted price to determine if the proposed price is fair and reasonable. Price reasonableness will be based on competitive offers when possible. DEFINITIONS: Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. Strength: Any aspect of a proposal when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract. Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Proposal Risk: Proposal risks are those risks associated with the likelihood that an Offeror's proposed approach will meet the requirements of the solicitation. Performance Risk: Performance risks are those risks associated with an Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that Offeror's record of current or past performance. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to make no award under this solicitation. PROVISIONS AND CLAUSES: The following clauses apply to this acquisition: FAR Clauses 52.212-1: Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items; 52.212-2: Evaluation-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. Within clause 52.212-5, the following additional FAR clauses apply: 52.204-10, 52.209-6, 52.219-6, 52.219-28, 52.222-3, 52.222-19, 52.222-21, 52.222-26, 52.222-35, 52.222-36, 52.223-18, 52.225-13, and 52.232-33. Also applicable are the following FAR clauses: 52.246-2: Inspection of Supplies -- Fixed Price; and 52.252-2: Clauses Incorporated by reference. DFARS clause 252.212-7001: Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders Applicable to Defense Acquisition of Commercial Items, also applies. Within DFARs Clause 252.212-7001, the following clauses are applicable: 252.203-7000, 252.225-7001, 252.227-7037, 252.232-7003, and 252.247-7023 with Alternate III. The following DFARS clause is also applicable: 252.232-7010. The applicable Local clauses are as follows: ARDEC 30, ARDEC 31, ARDEC 68, ARDEC 70, ARDEC 106, ARDEC 163, JM&L 179, JM&L 182, JM&L 191, JM&L 196, and JM&L 197. The full text of all FAR and DFARS solicitation provisions or clauses may be accessed electronically at http://farsite.hill.af.mil. Local Clauses can be found at http://procnet.pica.army.mil under Local Links and then Local Clauses. ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS PROPOSAL SUBMISSION: Offerors shall carefully review the attached Statement of Objectives (Attachment 1), and CDRLS (Attachment 2), as well as the above listed Evaluation Factors and Evaluation Approach). This combined synopsis solicitation is 100% set-aside for small businesses. NOTE: This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions/clauses by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Offerors are required to provide their Contractors DUNS Number and Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code with their quote. The CAGE code entered shall be for that name and address provided by the Contractor. Offerors shall have a valid registration in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR). Offerors shall also have a valid registration in the Online Representations and Certification Application (ORCA) and shall include with their quote a completed copy of the provision at 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications -- Commercial Items. The website for CCR is www.ccr.gov. The website for ORCA is Http://orca.bpn.gov. THE WRITTEN PROPOSAL SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS NO LATER THAN 4:00 P.M. EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME, SEPTEMBER 29, 2011: U.S. Army Joint Munitions & Lethality Contracting Center Soldier Weapons Contracting Center (PICA-ACC-SW) ATTN: Mrs. Gloria Thoguluva, 973-724-5366 Phipps Road, BLDG 9 Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000 PROPOSALS RECEIVED AFTER 4:00 P.M. OCTOBER 13, 2011 WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. The Points of Contact for this action are: Gloria Thoguluva, Contract Specialist, ACC-PICA-SW, via e-mail at gloria.thoguluva@us.army.mil, or Jean Grinter, Contracting Officer, ACC-PICA-SW, via email at jean.grinter@us.army.mil. PHONE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/8455f487d9840d4ff99fe3e4e201a60d)
- Record
- SN02573697-W 20110915/110913235732-8455f487d9840d4ff99fe3e4e201a60d (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 |