R--Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint History Office study/analysis on the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the War in Iraq.

Joint Chiefs of Staff and the War in Iraq This is a combined synopsis solicitation for a commercial product 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 acquisition is 100% set aside for small business in accordance with FAR 52.219-1 AND 52.219-6 (THIS MEANS YOU MUST BE A SMALL BUSINESS, QUOTING THE PRODUCT OF A SMALL BUSINESS CONTRACTOR). This request for quote (RFQ) N00174-13-Q- ???? is the only written solicitation, which will be issued, unless amended. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 541990. The Offeror shall provide a firm fixed price offer to assist the Joint History Office (JHO) with research and writing services in support of an effort to collect and preserve strategic-level records, and to document the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) role in shaping national security policy during the war in Iraq. The individual will work part time at 20 hours per week in the Joint Staff History Office, which due to handling of classified documents, is a secure workspace. **The individual must have a Top Secret SCI Clearance AT THE TIME OF AWARD ** The information will contribute to the formation of a document archive, a chronology of significant events, and a classified manuscript detailing the initial planning phase of the conflict. UNLESS AVAILABLE VIA Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) THE OFFERORS ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE AND INCLUDE A COPY OF THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS WITH THEIR PROPOSALS REFERENCING APPLICABLE NAICS AND SIZE STANDARD STATED ABOVE: FAR 52.219-1 Alt 1 Small Business Program Representative, FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representation and Certifications – Commercial Items, FAR 52.222-22 Previous Contracts and Compliance Reports, FAR 52.222-25 Affirmative Action Compliance. The following clauses are also applicable to this requirement: FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items, applies with paragraph (a) completed as follows: Award will be made to the offeror that meets the solicitation’s minimum criteria at the lowest price. The following provisions are also applicable to this requirement: FAR 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions – Commercial Items, FAR 52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required Implementing Statutes or Executive Orders – Commercial Items, with reference to 52.219-4, 52.219-28, 52.222-3, 52.222-19, 52.222-21, 52.222-26, 52.222-35, 52.222-36, 52.222-37, 52.222-39, 52.222-50, 52.223-9, 52.225-1, 52.225-13 and 52.232-33. Addendum to 52.212-4 includes DFARS 252.211-7003 Item Identification and Valuation. 52.212-2, Evaluation-Commercial Items: the evaluation factors are as follows, listed in descending order of importance, unless otherwise stated. Factor One – Technical The Offeror shall address technical subfactors as detailed below which are of equal importance. Subfactor One – Technical Approach: The Offeror shall demonstrate an understanding of the requirements that are specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), specifically section three. The Offeror’s technical approach must demonstrate the necessary skills, knowledge, and capabilities to successfully perform all tasks in the PWS. At a minimum, the Offeror’s technical proposal shall demonstrate the following mandatory technical specifications: • An ability to collect and collate strategically significant historical data; • An ability to analyze and interpret strategically significant historical events; and • An established record of historical publications involving national security policy. Subfactor Two – Relevant Experience: The Offeror shall respond with a written narrative detailing their knowledge and experience, as it relates to their ability to collect and collate strategically significant historical data, and reconstruct and analyze the JCS role in developing and implementing national security policy. The narrative shall address the Offeror's familiarity with the JCS and the evolution of national security policy for Iraq during the period from 1991 to 2011, research design and execution experience, and writing and editing skills. Working knowledge of Joint Staff methods and security procedures, to include familiarity with the Enterprise Content Management (ECM) Repository, the Joint Staff Action Processing (JSAP) system, and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS) should also be noted. The Government will assess the Offeror's experience to determine whether they have performed efforts similar to those required under the PWS. The Government will use the following combined technical/risk rating which includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Outstanding: 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. Good: 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. Acceptable: 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. Marginal: 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. Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable. “Risk? as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. “Deficiency? is 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. See FAR 15.001. “Weakness? is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001. NO PRICING IS TO BE PROVIDED IN THE TECHNICAL APPROACH. Factor Two - Past Performance: The Government evaluates the Prime and Teaming Subcontractor's past performance to develop the Offeror’s past performance rating. Past performance will be evaluated by the Contract Specialist. Past performance information is one indicator of an Offeror’s and subcontractors’ ability to perform the contract successfully. In the evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance, the Government reserves the right to use relevant performance within the past three years. Relevant and timely past performance information in Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) (http://www.ppirs.gov/) including the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) will be considered during the evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance. Other sources of information available to the Government will also be used in the evaluation of Past Performance. Using the Past Performance Matrix, the Offeror and all teaming subcontractors shall provide a list of relevant contracts that were performed within the last three years. Contracts that are listed in PPIRS are preferred. The list shall contain no more than seven relevant contracts. A separate matrix shall be provided for the Prime and each teaming subcontractor. The identified relevant contracts shall focus on performance that is relevant to the current solicitation requirement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity and dollar value. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. If the Offeror has no relevant past performance within the last three years or cannot provide a list of relevant contracts, then the Offeror must provide an explanation. Past Performance Questionnaires only apply to relevant contracts for which performance information is not available through PPIRS. The Offeror and teaming subcontractors shall submit the Past Performance Questionnaire attached in Section J to all of the references listed on the Past Performance Matrix for which PPIRS information is not available, and shall request the references to complete the Past Performance Questionnaire and return it directly to: Procurement Division 4072 North Jackson Road Suite 118, Code A23E Indian Head, MD 20640-5115 Past Performance Questionnaires may also be emailed to Vincent Culliver Vincent.culliver@navy.mil, which is the preferred method of delivery. The following Past Performance ratings are used by references to rate Past Performance: Exceptional: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the customer’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Offeror were highly effective. Very Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the customer’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. Satisfactory: Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. Unsatisfactory: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem (s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. Neutral: The Offeror lacks a relevant past performance record or past performance information is not available or cannot be determined. The Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Factor Three – Price: In determining the overall value of the proposal, price is less important than the technical approach, relevant experience, and past performance. The Offeror’s proposed payment schedule will be evaluated. When evaluating the price proposal, a determination will be made as to the Offerors’ price reasonableness and completeness. The Offerors’ proposals must demonstrate reasonable pricing that is aligned with the technical approach. Price will not receive an adjectival rating. Failure to address any of the instructions within this combined synopsis/solicitation may result in a quote being considered unacceptable. The Government will make a best value determination based on these factors. Intent is to award based on initial offers. If considered necessary by the Contracting Officer, discussions will be conducted only with those Offerors determined to have a reasonable chance for award. Parties responding to this solicitation may submit their quote in accordance with their standard commercial practices (e.g. on company letterhead, formal quotes form, etc.) but must include the following information: 1.) Company’s complete mailing and remittance addresses, discounts for prompt payment, if any (e.g. 1% 10 days), ability to meet delivery requirement and unit cost of product. 2.) The company’s CAGE code, Dun & Bradstreet Number, and Taxpayer ID number. 3.) In addition, if you are quoting on a comparable commercial item, product literature must be included. 4.) To reiterate, All FAR certifications and representations specified above must also accompany your quote unless available on line. Any and all questions must be submitted 5 days before close of solicitation. No questions will be accepted after than time. Responses must be received no later than 3:30 p.m. EST on 27 Aug 2013. Provide responses to Vincent Culliver, Code A23E, Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division (NSWC IHD), Procurement Division, 4072 North Jackson Road Suite 118, Code A23E Indian Head, MD 20640-5115. Electronic mail address: Vincent.culliver@navy.mil or FAX: 301-744-6670 This synopsis is being posted to both the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) page located at http://www.eps.gov and the Navy Electronic Commerce on Line (NECO) site located at http://www.neco.navy.mil. While it is understood that FBO is the single point of entry for posting of synopsis and solicitations to the internet, NECO is the alternative in case FBO is unavailable. Please feel free to use either site to access information posted by the Navy Sea Systems Command.