This special notice is issued for the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) requirement for long-term provision of personnel and services to support operations and maintenance of USCGC STORIS. It is anticipated that this requirement will be solicited on an unrestricted basis and posted via sam.gov NLT 11 December 2026 . STATEMENT OF WORK : In continuance of its plan to replace the services under contract number 70Z02325C93260002, the USCG is releasing a draft Performance Work Statement (PWS). All of the attached are current versions and subject to change. The PWS is for personnel and services to support the operations and maintenance of USCGC STORIS. The contractor’s services will complement and supplement organic Coast Guard personnel onboard the cutter, on shore in Seattle, Washington, Alameda, California, and Baltimore, Maryland. SOLICITATION INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY : To support industry preparation of the upcoming solicitation, the USCG is providing draft solicitation instructions and evaluation factors below that interested firms can expect to be incorporated in Sections L&M respectively in the final solicitation posting. All of the attached are current versions and subject to change. The draft Section L and M provides important solicitation instructions and delineates the government’s approach to evaluating proposals and formulating award. SOLICITATION NO. [INSERT SOLICITATION NUMBER] USCGC STORIS FY 2027–2031 SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT UNITED STATES COAST GUARD | SURFACE FORCE LOGISTICS CENTER SECTION L: INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS 1.0 PROGRAM INTRODUCTION AND ACQUISITION OVERVIEW This solicitation is issued in support of sustainment services for the United States Coast Guard Cutter (USCGC) STORIS (formerly M/V AIVIQ), as described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Offerors shall prepare proposals that demonstrate their ability to provide continuous, safe, compliant, and fully qualified support throughout the base period and all option periods. The Government intends to award a single contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered, through a Best Value Tradeoff source selection process. Offerors shall comply with all solicitation provisions, including the applicable Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Department of Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR), and United States Coast Guard (USCG) requirements incorporated in the solicitation. Offerors shall submit proposals electronically to the Contracting Officer at the address identified in Section A of this solicitation no later than the date and time stated on the solicitation cover page. Proposals shall be clearly labeled: Solicitation No.: [Insert Solicitation Number] Project Title: USCGC STORIS FY27–31 Sustainment Support Offeror Name: [Insert Offeror Name] Offerors are responsible for ensuring their proposal is received by the Government by the stated deadline. Late proposals may be handled in accordance with FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Products and Commercial Services, or FAR 15.208, as applicable. 2.0 GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS 2.1 Proposal Volume Organization and Page Limitations Proposals shall be submitted in the four (4) separate volumes listed below. Unless otherwise stated, page limitations exclude cover pages, tables of contents, glossaries/acronym lists, resumes, letters of commitment, copies of merchant mariner credentials/licenses, required representations and certifications, and pricing worksheets. Volume Title Maximum Length Format I Technical Approach 10 pages Searchable Adobe PDF II Staffing, Key Personnel, and Security 10 pages (Excludes Resumes, Letters of Commitment, & Credential Copies) Searchable Adobe PDF III Past Performance At least three (3) references (No page limit; max 4 pages per reference recommended) Searchable Adobe PDF IV Price No page limit Searchable Adobe PDF & Unlocked MS Excel The Government may disregard information submitted in excess of the stated page limitations. 2.2 Formatting Requirements Page Formatting: Standard 8.5 × 11 inch page layout with margins of no less than one (1) inch on all sides. Body Font: Minimum 11-point font (e.g., Times New Roman, Arial, or Calibri). Tables, Charts, and Graphics: Minimum 9-point font. Hyperlinks & Cross-Referencing: Offerors shall not incorporate material by reference, except for information expressly requested by the Government. External hyperlinks to websites or external drives are strictly prohibited. 3.0 VOLUME I: FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH (MAXIMUM 10 PAGES) Offerors shall submit a clear, detailed, and technically sound approach for executing all performance requirements outlined in PWS Section 3.0. Statements that the Offeror understands, can, or will comply with the PWS (i.e., merely paraphrasing or restating the PWS) without detailed explanatory narrative are insufficient. The volume shall be structured into four subsections: 3.1 Subfactor 1.1: Vessel Operations and Watchstanding Execution The Offeror shall describe its operational methodology to support USCGC STORIS underway and in-port operations, addressing: Watchstanding & Lookout Protocols: Procedures for providing qualified bridge watchstanders and maintaining continuous, compliant lookouts consistent with Rule 5 of COLREGs and STCW work/rest mandates. Helmsman Performance: Methodology for executing steering and maneuvering orders using standardized IMO Standard Marine Communication Phrases (SMCP) and closed-loop communications. Maneuvering & Specialized Operations: Technical procedures for executing Dynamic Positioning (DP) operations, docking/undocking, mooring, anchoring, Fast Rescue Craft (FRC)/daughter craft launch and recovery, cargo handling, and helicopter flight operations. Voyage Planning & Navigation Logging: Approach to collaborating with Coast Guard navigators beginning at least 14 days prior to deployments, including route planning, fuel estimates, and maintaining continuous radio watches (VHF Ch 16/70 and VTS). 3.2 Subfactor 1.2: Engineering Operations, Preventive Maintenance, and Casualty Response The Offeror shall detail its plan to execute mechanical, electrical, and control operations, addressing: Engineering Watchstanding & Physical Rounds: Processes for conducting daily rounds, inspecting watertight closures, monitoring bilge/slop levels, ground indicators, and electrical switchboards. Machinery Monitoring & Local Control: Approach to monitoring the Machinery Plant Control and Monitoring System (MPCMS) and assuming local control of propulsion and auxiliary equipment during casualties. Preventive & Corrective Maintenance: Detailed execution plan for carrying out maintenance under the cutter’s Preventive Maintenance System (PMS), conducting shipboard corrective maintenance, and preparing the monthly Depot Maintenance Requirements Report. 3.3 Subfactor 1.3: 24/7/365 Reachback Technical Support (Designated Systems) The Offeror shall describe its reachback infrastructure to provide continuous (24 hours/day, 7 days/week, 365 days/year) engineering support for the ten (10) complex systems designated in PWS Section 3.7 (Medium-voltage switchgear, GCUs/PMS, MPCMS, Thrusters, DP System, Towing Winch, Reduction Gears, CPP System, Shaft Seals/Bearings, and Integrated Bridge Systems): Rapid Response Architecture: Detailed plan guaranteeing formal acknowledgment within two (2) hours and delivery of actionable corrective action plans within 48 hours . Escalated Troubleshooting: Process for issuing Condition Found Reports (CFRs) within 48 hours when issues exceed 16 shoreside labor hours or require flyaway support. Electronic Trouble Log: Architecture and workflow for maintaining the continuous digital Trouble Log delivered monthly to the COR. 3.4 Subfactor 1.4: Knowledge Transfer, Training, and Program Deliverables The Offeror shall describe: Coast Guard Training Plan: Methodology for delivering hands-on, one-to-one operational and maintenance training to active-duty military personnel to build organic Coast Guard capability. Program Management & Deliverables Control: Management system for ensuring all PWS Section 8.0 deliverables (including the monthly Report on Provision of Certified Mariners) are accurate, complete, and delivered on schedule. 4.0 VOLUME II: FACTOR 2 – STAFFING, KEY PERSONNEL, AND SECURITY (MAXIMUM 10 PAGES) (Note: Resumes, Letters of Commitment, and Mariner Credential copies do not count against the 10-page limit). The Offeror shall present a comprehensive crewing, organizational, and security management approach to satisfy the requirements of PWS Section 3.1, 3.5, 3.6, 3.9, and 4.0: 4.1 Subfactor 2.1: Certified Mariner Staffing and Crew Rotation Management Ten-Person Mariner Complement: Organizational chart and staffing plan to recruit, mobilize, and maintain the ten (10) required STCW-certified positions throughout the 5-year period of performance: 1 Master (Key Personnel) [Master ≥ 3,000 GT, STCW II/2] 1 Chief Mate [Chief Mate ≥ 3,000 GT, STCW II/2] 1 Second Mate / OICNW [STCW II/1] 2 Able Seafarers – Deck [STCW II/5] 1 Chief Engineer [Chief Engineer ≥ 3,000 kW / 4,000 HP, STCW III/2] 1 First Assistant Engineer [1AE ≥ 3,000 kW / 4,000 HP] 1 Second Assistant Engineer / OICEW [STCW III/1] 2 QMED / Able Seafarers – Engine [STCW III/5] Crew Rotation & Relief Plan: Operational plan managing 4-week crew rotations at Base Seattle or forward ports without disrupting cutter operational schedules. Emergency Absence & Surge Support: Approach for deploying fully qualified relief personnel within 24–48 hours for leave, illness, or emergency absences. Medical & Chemical Testing Compliance: Management processes ensuring all mariners hold valid USCG Medical Certificates (46 CFR 15.401), high-latitude clearances, and random chemical drug/alcohol testing under an appointed Medical Review Officer (MRO) per 46 CFR Parts 4 and 16. 4.2 Subfactor 2.2: Key Personnel and Specific Platform Experience Designated Key Personnel: Resumes and signed Letters of Commitment for: Program Manager (PM): Single contractual POC, ≥ 5 years managing complex vessel staffing and marine industrial support. Master: Licensed Master (≥ 3,000 GT) with deep command experience on large naval auxiliaries, icebreakers, or commercial offshore vessels. Specific Platform Experience (STORIS / M/V AIVIQ Sea-Time): Documented evidence demonstrating that the proposed Master, Chief Mate, Chief Engineer, and First Assistant Engineer each possess at least four (4) months of qualifying sea time aboard USCGC STORIS (formerly M/V AIVIQ) at their proposed rank or one grade lower. Contingency Submission Plan: If an Offeror does not currently retain candidates with this specific sea-time qualification, the Offeror must submit an auditable candidate sourcing plan detailing how it will submit three (3) vetted, qualified candidates per position to the Coast Guard for approval no later than 90 calendar days prior to the first operational deployment. 4.3 Subfactor 2.3: Security, Clearances, and CUI Safeguarding Facility Security Clearance (FCL): Documentation verifying an active prime contractor Secret Facility Clearance issued by DCSA (provide CAGE code). Personnel Security Clearances (PCL): Demonstration that all proposed mariners hold active Secret Personnel Clearances (Tier 3/SF-86) or can be fully cleared prior to contract performance. Identity, Access, and CUI Protection: Strategy for ensuring timely Common Access Card (CAC) issuance under COMDTINST 5500.18, TWIC verification, submission of Security Training and OPSEC plans within 45 days of award, and safeguarding Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) in accordance with NIST SP 800-171, DHS MD 11042.1, and SF-901 procedures. 5.0 VOLUME III: FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE (AT LEAST THREE REFERENCES) Offerors shall provide at least three (3), but no more than five (5) past performance references for contracts performed by the Offeror or major subcontractors within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. 5.1 Content of Past Performance References Each reference shall not exceed four (4) pages and must include: Contracting Agency / Commercial Customer Name and Address. Contract Number, Order Number, and Title. Contract Type (e.g., FFP, T&M, Cost-Reimbursement). Total Contract Value and Period of Performance. Customer Points of Contact (Contracting Officer, COR, or Commercial Marine Superintendent) with current email addresses and phone numbers. Detailed description of the work performed, highlighting relevance to the STORIS scope. 5.2 Relevance Criteria References will be evaluated based on relevance to the PWS requirements, specifically: Certified mariner crewing aboard vessels ≥ 3,000 GT and ≥ 4,000 HP. Underway and in-port sustainment operations in high-latitude, Arctic, or demanding offshore environments. Maintenance and operations of medium-voltage electrical systems, DP systems, and integrated bridge systems. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) may be utilized. The Government reserves the right to obtain data from CPARS, SPRS, and other commercial/government sources. 6.0 VOLUME IV: FACTOR 4 – PRICE (NO PAGE LIMIT) The Offeror shall submit completed pricing worksheets in both searchable PDF format and an unlocked, fully functional Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with all formulas intact. 6.1 Price Structure and CLIN Breakdown Pricing shall reflect the 5-year period of performance (12-month Base Period, four 12-month Option Periods) and encompass: CLIN X001 (Firm-Fixed-Price): Certified Mariner Crewing & Core Vessel Sustainment (Monthly unit price for 10-person mariner crew, PM support, watchstanding, maintenance, and routine reporting). CLIN X002 (Firm-Fixed-Price): 24/7/365 Reachback Technical Support Readiness for Designated Systems (Monthly unit price guaranteeing 2-hour acknowledgment, 48-hour initial corrective actions, and continuous Trouble Log). CLIN X003 (Time-and-Materials / Labor-Hour): Optional Specialized Technical Services (Fixed fully burdened hourly labor rates across Government-specified labor categories, multiplied by estimated hours for evaluation). CLIN X004 (Cost-Reimbursable): Travel & Per Diem (Government-provided plug figure of $150,000 annually; Offerors shall not alter plug values). SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD (BEST VALUE TRADEOFF) The Government intends to award one contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered. The Government will evaluate proposals using a best-value tradeoff process under FAR Part 15. The source selection decision will be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all stated evaluation factors. The Government reserves the right to award to an Offeror who demonstrates superior technical capability, lower performance risk, and higher confidence at a price premium, where the Contracting Officer determines that the non-price advantages justify the additional cost. Conversely, the Government will not pay an unjustified price premium for technical capabilities that do not provide clear operational value. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions; therefore, Offerors are encouraged to submit their most favorable technical and pricing terms initially. 2.0 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS The evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance : Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Staffing, Key Personnel, and Security Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Price Relative Weighting: When combined, all non-price factors (Factors 1, 2, and 3) are significantly more important than price . As proposals become more equal under the non-price factors, price will become increasingly important in the best-value tradeoff decision. 3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND CRITERIA 3.1 Factor 1: Technical Approach The Government will evaluate the adequacy, feasibility, completeness, and soundness of the Offeror's proposed technical approach to determine how effectively the Offeror will perform the requirements of PWS Section 3.0: Vessel Operations & Watchstanding: Evaluated on the thoroughness of procedures for bridge watchstanding, lookout compliance with Rule 5 of COLREGs, IMO SMCP closed-loop helmsman duties, DP operations, small boat/daughter craft launch/recovery, and collaborative voyage planning. Engineering Operations & Maintenance: Evaluated on the robustness of physical engineering rounds, machinery control, execution of the cutter's PMS, corrective maintenance capabilities, and depot-level maintenance planning. 24/7/365 Reachback Technical Support: Evaluated on the Offeror's technical capability to provide around-the-clock support across all ten (10) designated systems, strictly complying with the 2-hour acknowledgment and 48-hour initial corrective action plan mandates. Training & Deliverables Management: Evaluated on the structured methodology for hands-on, one-to-one knowledge transfer to Coast Guard crew members and disciplined deliverable management. 3.2 Factor 2: Staffing, Key Personnel, and Security The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s staffing model, personnel qualifications, retention strategies, and security readiness to ensure seamless support under PWS Sections 3.1, 3.5, 3.6, 3.9, and 4.0: Mariner Manning & Crew Rotation: Evaluated on the Offeror’s plan to continuously furnish ten (10) properly credentialed STCW mariners, execute four-week crew rotations without operational disruption, manage STCW rest compliance, maintain drug/medical fitness, and mobilize replacement personnel within 24–48 hours. Key Personnel Qualifications: Evaluated on the qualifications, leadership credentials, and maritime experience of the proposed Program Manager and Master. Specific Platform Experience (STORIS / M/V AIVIQ Sea-Time): Proposals providing proposed personnel (Master, Chief Mate, Chief Engineer, First Assistant Engineer) with verified, documented sea time of at least four (4) months aboard USCGC STORIS (formerly M/V AIVIQ) will receive favorable consideration for reducing operational familiarization risk. For proposals relying on the 90-day contingency vetting process, the Government will evaluate the credibility, sourcing pipeline, and feasibility of delivering three (3) vetted, high-caliber candidates per position at least 90 days before operational deployment. Security Readiness: Evaluated on the Offeror’s verified active Secret Facility Clearance (FCL), personnel security clearance pipelines, CAC sponsorship timeline, and robust CUI safeguarding plans. 3.3 Factor 3: Past Performance The Government will evaluate recent and relevant past performance to assess its confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required services: Recency: Performance occurring within the past five (5) years from the solicitation issue date. Relevance: The Government will assess the degree of similarity in scope, complexity, vessel tonnage/horsepower (≥ 3,000 GT, ≥ 4,000 HP), ice-capable operations, and reachback engineering. Quality of Performance: Evaluated on customer satisfaction, schedule adherence, operational reliability, cost control, management responsiveness, and safety/regulatory compliance. Confidence Assessment: Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information is not available will be rated as "Neutral Confidence" in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). 3.4 Factor 4: Price The Government will evaluate price proposals for reasonableness and completeness in accordance with FAR 15.404. Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be calculated as the sum of: CLIN X001 (FFP Sustainment/Manning) for Base and all Option Periods. CLIN X002 (FFP 24/7/365 Reachback Support) for Base and all Option Periods. CLIN X003 (Optional Technical Services) evaluated using fixed labor rates multiplied by Government-estimated hours. CLIN X004 (Travel) Government-specified plug values. The Government’s evaluation under FAR 52.217-8 (Option to Extend Services) based on six months of the final option period rate. Price Reasonableness & Balance: Evaluated to ensure proposed prices are fair, reasonable, and not materially unbalanced between base and option periods or between labor categories. 4.0 EVALUATION RATING METHODOLOGY 4.1 Technical Approach and Staffing/Security Adjectival Ratings (Factors 1 & 2) The Government will assign an adjectival rating to Factors 1 and 2 reflecting technical quality and performance risk: Adjectival Rating Definition Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements; contains multiple significant strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements; 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 balanced; risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate. Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements; contains one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths; risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Unacceptable Proposal fails to meet an acceptable standard of performance; contains one or more deficiencies; proposal is unawardable. 4.2 Past Performance Relevance and Confidence Ratings (Factor 3) Past Performance Relevancy Levels: Very Relevant: Performance effort involved essentially the same scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities (e.g., civilian-crewed polar/ice-capable vessels >3,000 GT with 24/7 engineering reachback). Relevant: Performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude, and complexities (e.g., commercial or military auxiliary vessel crewing >3,000 GT or propulsion sustainment). Somewhat Relevant: Performance effort involved some of the scope, magnitude, and complexities (e.g., commercial marine staffing on smaller tonnage). Not Relevant: Performance effort involved little or none of the scope and complexity. Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings: Substantial Confidence: The Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record. Satisfactory Confidence: The Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform based on the Offeror's record. Neutral Confidence: No recent/relevant performance record is available. A neutral rating neither rewards nor penalizes the Offeror. Limited Confidence: The Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform based on past performance deficiencies. No Confidence: The Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform based on past performance deficiencies.
