SOLICITATION NOTICE
65 -- ES-2 Edging System
- Notice Date
- 9/5/2003
- Notice Type
- Solicitation Notice
- Contracting Office
- Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, FISC NORFOLK ACQUISITION GROUP, CODE 200 1968 GILBERT STREET, SUITE 600, NORFOLK, VA, 23511-3392
- ZIP Code
- 23511-3392
- Solicitation Number
- N00189-03-T-0682
- Response Due
- 9/12/2003
- Archive Date
- 9/27/2003
- Point of Contact
- Fannie Richardson, Contract Specialist, Phone 757-443-1398, Fax 757-443-1424, - Bonnie Parker, Contract Specialist, Phone 757-443-1410, Fax 757-443-1414,
- E-Mail Address
-
fannie.richardson@navy.mil, bonnie.parker@navy.mil
- Description
- The Government intends to award a contract under Other Than Full and Open Competition Procedures to LOH Optical Machinery for the procurement of four ES-2 Edging Systems. This procurement is in accordance with FAR Subpart 13-5. 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 not be issued. The solicitation number is N00189-03-T-0682 and it is issued as a Request For Quote (RFQ). This solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2001-15, dated 24 July 2003. The NAICS code for this requirement is 339112 and the small business size standard is 500 employees. Item 1001, ES-2 Edging System, PN #01000929, 4 each; Item 1002, ES-2 Loading System, PN #01000975, 4 each; Item 1003, Coolant System, PN #02-004-787, 4 each; Item 1004, ES-2 Accessory Kit, PN # 01000929A, 2 each; Item 1005, Chiller, Merlin M33, PN #98-003-792, 4 each; Item 1006, Finishing Block, Large, Blue, 25/Pkg, PN #92003938, 80 pkg. Item 1007, Finishing Block, Half (1/2) Eye Blue, 25/Pkg., PN # 92003939, 8 pkg., Item 1008, Extended Warranty, 4 each; Item 1009, Crating for ES-2 Edger, PN # 01000929C, 4 each; Item 1010, Shipping, 1 LOT. The items shall be delivered on or before 31 Oct 03. Delivery is FOB destination to Yorktown, Virginia. The provision at 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial, applies to this acquisition. The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The offeror's proposal shall be in the form prescribed by this solicitation and shall contain a response to each of the areas identified, which affects the evaluation factors for award. In accordance with the provision at 52.212-2, Evaluation-Commercial Items, the quote will be evaluated based on Past Performance and Price. Past Performance is considered to be more important than Price. Due to the interrelationship of services to be provided hereunder, the Government reserves the right to make a single award to the offeror whose offer is considered in the best interest of the Government, price and other factors considered. Therefore, offerors proposing less than the entire effort specified herein may be determined to be unacceptable. All offerors shall include a completed copy of the provision at 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications-commercial Items, with its offer. The clause at 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions-Commercial Items, applies to this acquisition. The clause at 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required To Implement Statues Or Executive Orders-commercial Items applies to this acquisition. The following clauses apply: 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services; 252.232-7003, Electronic Submission of Payment Requests; 52.232-33 Payment By Electronic funds Transfer- Central Contractor Registration; and 252.204-7004, Required Central Contractor Registration. Invoices shall be mailed to: Naval Ophthalmic Support and Training Activity, 160 Main Rd, Ste 350, Yorktown, VA 23691-9984. No purchase or award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. The contracting officer shall require acceptable evidence of the prospective contractor's current sound financial status, as well as the ability to obtain required resources if the need arises. In regard to resources, the contractor must be prepared to present acceptable evidence of subcontracts, commitments or explicit arrangement that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase, or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, services, materials, other resources, or personnel. Consideration of a prime contractor's compliance with limitations on subcontracting shall be taken into account for the time period covered by the contract base period or quantities, plus option periods or quantities, if such options are considered when evaluating offers for award. Pursuant to FAR 9.104-4, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to request adequate evidence of responsibility on the part of any prospective subcontractor(s). In the absence of information clearly indicating that the prospective contractor is responsible, the contracting officer shall make a determination of non-responsibility. As a minimum requirement, all offerors must submit, as part of the original proposal, the following: (1) Company's Financial Statement which includes Balance Sheet and Income Statement; and (2) Point of Contact from their Bank or any financial institution with which they transact business. Number notes 22 applies. ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 - Instruction to Offerors - Commercial Past Performance Evaluation Standards: Offerors are required to provide information on no more than five (5) of the firm’s most recently completed Federal Government, State Government, Municipal Government, or commercial contracts (not to exceed five years since completion) for like or similar services to those to be provided under this RFQ. 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. Offerors who present similar contracts/orders should provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the relevance of the contract/order to the requirements of the solicitation. The offerors should provide the following information regarding past performance: a) Contract or purchase order number(s), b) Name and phone number of contact at the Federal, State, Local Government, or Commercial entity for which the contract was performed, c) E-mail address of point of contact (if known) d) Dollar value of the contract, e) Detailed description of the work performed, f) Names of subcontractor(s) used, if any, and a description of the extent of work performed by the subcontractor(s), g) The number, type, and severity of any quality, delivery, or cost problems in performing the contract, the corrective action taken, and the effectiveness of the corrective action, and Offerors lacking relevant past performance history, or for whom past performance information is either not available or has not been submitted to the Government, will receive a neutral rating for past performance. If the offeror possesses no relevant past performance, it should affirmatively state this fact. A neutral rating will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably. However, the proposal with no relevant past performance history, while rated neutral in past performance, may not represent the most advantageous quote to the Government and thus, may be an unsuccessful quote when compared to the proposals of other offerors having acceptable (or better) past performance. Offerors are cautioned that the Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any sources including sources outside of the Government. The Government will obtain whatever information it deems most relevant to the required effort by telephonic and/or written inquiry. This information may include Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS) or past performance information from any source. The evaluation will accurately summarize each telephone discussion on a Telephone Interview Report Form (Attachment 1). A copy of the Telephone Interview Report Form will be promptly sent via fax or e-mail to the point of contact for verification. The information contained in offeror's Past Performance submittals will be evaluated by the PCO with the assistance of the Contract Specialist. The PCO will evaluate the offeror's Past Performance using the following sub-factors, which are of equal importance. (a) Quality: The offeror’s demonstrated history of delivering products and services of high quality. Quality will be evaluated in terms of: i. customer satisfaction, ii. instances of rework and/or deficiency reports, and iii. evidence of effective and/or innovative work applications that were beneficial to the customer. (b) Timeliness: The offeror’s compliance with i. performance schedules, ii. timeliness of submission of requested information, reports and invoicing. (c) Contractor Responsiveness: The offeror’s demonstrated ability to i. respond to customer concerns, ii. isolate and resolve problems, and iii. take systemic improvement action. Each performance risk assessment of the factors listed above will consider the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of corrective actions taken and the overall work record. The 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: Very Low Performance Risk: Based on the offeror's performance record, virtually no doubt exists that the offeror will very successfully perform the required effort. Low Performance Risk: Based on the offeror's performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Moderate Performance Risk: Based on the offeror's performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. High Performance Risk: Based on the offeror's performance record, significant doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Neutral: No relevant past performance history, or for which past performance information is not provided or available. Unknown performance risk assessment. Under most circumstances, it will be unnecessary to divulge the solicitation number, or other identifying information to the reference. In the event that it is necessary, you need to obtain a non-disclosure statement from the party to whom the information was provided. Price: The PCO will evaluate Price. When the proposals are received, the PCO shall review the submission of offers as specified in FAR Clause 52.212-1 Instruction to Offerors– Commercial Items (Oct 2000), paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(11). Evaluation of Price Proposal: The offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated on the basis of price reasonableness in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.404-1. The evaluation may include, but is not limited to: a) Price comparison with other offerors; b) Completeness: All pricing information as it directly relates to the SOW; and c) Comparison with independent Government estimates. Increasing Significance of Price: Although price is the least most important evaluation factor, it has the potential to become more significant during the evaluation process. The degree of importance of the price will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the other factor on which selection is to be based. The importance of price will also increase when a proposal's price is so significantly high as to diminish the value to the Government that might be gained under the other aspects of the offer. If, at any stage of the evaluation, all offeror’s are determined to have submitted equal, or virtually equal, or generally equivalent, non-price proposals, price could become the factor in determining which offeror shall received the award. Determination for Award to Best Value Offer: At the appropriate juncture in which the PCO will make a best value determination, the PCO shall engage in a best value determination in accordance with the evaluation criteria in the solicitation. The PCO will review all of the proposals. The PCO shall integrate the evaluation of Past Performance and Price. Upon completion of this review, award will be made to the offeror whose quotation, conforming to the solicitation, is considered most advantageous to the Government, considering past performance and price. The basis for the PCO’s selection will be documented in the Source Selection Decision Memorandum. Based upon the fact that this procurement will be performed in accordance with FAR Subpart 13.5 – Test Program for Certain Commercial Items, the evaluation and documentation will reflect a Simplified Acquisition Procedure. The Government reserves the right to select an offeror with other than the best past performance, if the price is so advantageous to the Government as to constitute best value. On the other hand, the Government may select an offeror with other than the lowest price if the quality of past performance and a fair and reasonable price of a competitor result in the greatest value to the Government. Any such determination of best value will be made by the Contracting Officer pursuant to the evaluation criteria identified in this plan and the solicitation. The closing date and time for this RFQ is 12 Sep 03, 1600 hrs. Fannie Richardson, the Contract Specialist may be contacted at 757 443-1398, for information regarding this RFQ. Statement of Work: The ES-2 shall be specifically designed for the industrial environment, high quality components and 3 axis CNC-controls to ensure maximum uptime. The ES-2 shall have programmable macro settings, based on specific lens characteristics, automatically adjust process parameters such as feed rates and spindle revolutions. Additionally, the ES-2 shall include a unique LOH clamping system to ensure optimum lens support and axis stability. The ES-2 shall have 60mm tools for organic lens and 100mm tools for mineral glass extend tool life to provide the lowest cost to lens ratios. The ES-2 shall have an innovative non-contact measuring system to achieve precise lens calculation. The ES-2 shall be designed to have “all-in-one” process, which includes beveling, measuring, polishing, pin beveling, and grooving. The machines shall be designed to accommodate most existing industrial electrical service, 208v, 16amp, 3 phase circuits. The ES2 shall have loading/unloading system utilizing LOH “multi-job-trays”, which can be used for finishing and surfacing automation of blocked lens. The systems shall include automatic barcode laser scanning for loading system and signal tower. The Coolant System shall consist of a 140-liter sump, which is movable, with a submersible pump. A course and fine waste collection basket with filter insert and temperature regulator. The required electrical service shall be 110v, 15amp, and 60Hz. The ES-2 Accessory Kit shall include 1 tool set; 1 adjusting device; 1 wrench set; 1 RS232 interface; 1 scanner interface and 1 instructional manual. The Chiller, Merlin M33 shall accommodate 115v, 15amps, 60Hz; the cooling capacity shall be 1250 Watts at 20 degrees “C” and 4266 BTU/hr at 20 degrees “C”. The finishing block shall be large, blue and have 25 per package. The finishing block shall be ˝, blue and have 25 per package. The extended warranty for the ES-2 System shall include a loader and the warranty shall be for one additional year. TELEPHONE INTERVIEW REPORT FORM PAST PERFORMANCE POC: _____________________________ POSITION: ________________________ PHONE: __________________________ BUSINESS ADDRESS: ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ OFFEROR: _______________________________ CONTRACT NUMBER: ______________________ 1) DESCRIBE THE WORK THAT THE OFFEROR PERFORMED FOR YOU UNDER THIS CONTRACT. 2) HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE QUALITY? Demonstrates history of delivering products and services of high quality. Quality = Customer satisfaction, instances of rework and or deficiency reports and evidence of effective and/or innovative work applications that were beneficial to the customer. () OUTSTANDING () HIGHLY ACCEPTABLE () ACCEPTABLE () MARGINAL () UNACCEPTABLE () NEUTRAL 3) HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE TIMELINESS? Demonstrates ability to comply with performance schedules, timeliness of submission of requested information, reports and invoicing? () OUTSTANDING () HIGHLY ACCEPTABLE () ACCEPTABLE () MARGINAL () UNACCEPTABLE () NEUTRAL 4) HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIVENESS? Ability to respond to customer concerns, to isolate and resolve problems, and to take systematic improvement action. () OUTSTANDING () HIGHLY ACCEPTABLE () ACCEPTABLE () MARGINAL () UNACCEPTABLE () NEUTRAL 5) WOULD YOU HIRE THIS CONTRACTOR AGAIN? IF NOT, WHY? CONTRACT SPECIALIST: ________________________________ DATE: _________________________ Attachment 1
- Web Link
-
Link to FedBizOpps document.
(http://www.eps.gov/spg/DON/NAVSUP/N00189/N00189-03-T-0682/listing.html)
- Record
- SN00428114-F 20030907/030905221154 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |