Combined_Synopsis_Solicitation.pdf

U . S . T R A D E A N D D E V E L O P M E N T A G E N C Y

SUBJECT: COMBINED SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATION: Argentina Transportation Sector

Project Opportunities Definitional Mission

SOLICITATION NUMBER: 1131PL-17-R-DM51057

ISSUANCE DATE: February 16, 2017

CLOSING DATE: March 9, 2017, 4:00 P.M. EST

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial item prepared in accordance with the format in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.6 and procedures in Subpart 13.1 as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only Request for Proposal (RFP); proposals are being requested and written solicitation will not be issued.

This solicitation is being issued In Accordance With (IAW) FAR Subpart 13.104. The

Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the RFP respondent who is deemed responsible and is determined, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

This procurement is unrestricted under NAICS Code 541690. Award is limited to U.S. Firms or

U.S. individuals. Contractor and subcontractor personnel used shall be either U.S. citizens on non-U.S. citizens lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States. Contractor use of subcontractors is limited to less than fifty percent of the proposed price.

The Government intends to award a Firm-Fixed Price (Fixed Labor Rate/Labor Day) contract with Cost Reimbursable Line Items for Travel to Argentina with a 12-month period of performance as a result of this RFP. The total estimated number of labor days for this contract is

35 days; broken down as follows: estimated 25 in labor days and estimated minimum of 10 days of travel to, within and from Argentina. (Note: RFP Respondent may follow USTDA’s estimated

Level of Effort on the price proposal worksheet or independently estimate their own

(accompanied with narratives)). Travel (which is cost reimbursable) will be required during the performance of this contract. No profit or fee shall be added to travel.

Proposals should set forth any exceptions/assumptions taken with regard to the Statement of

Work (SOW) or any other aspect of the RFP or any other information that you find necessary and pertinent to your proposal (for example, the RFP Respondent may follow the USTDA’s estimated Level of Effort spreadsheet or independently estimate theirs (accompanied with narratives)). However, RFP Respondents are cautioned that any exceptions/assumptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation will be at their own risk. Any exceptions or assumptions should clearly identify the paragraph and term or condition to which the exception or assumption is being made and include supporting rationale.

The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through

Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-91.

I. INSTRUCTIONS TO RFP RESPONDENTS

The provision at FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial, applies to this acquisition with addendum as follows:

1. Proposal Due Date: Your proposal must be received no later than 4:00 pm Noon on March

9, 2017. Late quotations will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f).

2. Proposal Submission: Send your quotation by email to contractproposals@ustda.gov.

Quotations submitted by fax or to alternate email addresses will NOT be accepted.

3. Questions Relating to This RFP: All questions concerning this solicitation should be directed to Ms. Angela Williams at awilliams@ustda.gov. The question cutoff date is 12 Noon

EST on February 24, 2017. Please reference the Solicitation Number in the Subject Line of your email.

4. Notice Regarding Suspension/Debarment/Ineligibility: Any contract awarded to a contractor who, at the time of award, is suspended, debarred, and ineligible for receipt of contract with Government Agencies or in receipt of a notice of proposed debarment from any

Government Agency, is voidable at the option of the Government.

5. System for Award Management (SAM) Database: All Contractors must be registered in the

SAM database via https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ in order to be eligible for contract award. Lack of registration in SAM will make an RFP respondent ineligible for award as described in FAR 52.204-7. However, do NOT delay submission of your proposal pending receipt of a CAGE code.

6. Special Contract Requirements: This Request for Propsoal (RFP) includes the following additional contract terms and conditions:

CONTRACTOR FOLLOW-ON (INELIGIBILITY): The Contractor and its subcontractors shall be ineligible to compete for, as a prime or subcontractor or otherwise, USTDA funded activities that result from this contract. USTDA reserves the right to grant a waiver, based upon FAR 9.503, if preclusion of the contractor or its subcontractors from the follow-on activity would not be in the Government's interest.

This restriction shall remain in effect for three years from the completion of this contract.

The contractor agrees to include this provision in all subcontracts to this contract.

7. Contract Clauses: The clauses at 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions-Commercial

Items and 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or

Executive Orders-Commercial Items, apply to this acquisition.

mailto:contractproposals@ustda.gov mailto:awilliams@ustda.gov https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/

8. Responses Shall Be Submitted In TWO Separate Volumes As Follows:

VOLUME I(a): TECHNICAL PROPOSAL:

**No pricing information shall be included as part of the technical proposal. All pricing information shall be included in a separate volume as noted on page 4 of this RFP**

Technical proposal shall not exceed 10 pages in length. Any additional pages will not be evaluated.

(a) The technical proposal shall clearly describe relevant technical background and professional experience in transportation infrastructure projects as it relates to the Statement of Work

(SOW), including experience developing Terms of Reference and budgets for feasibility studies and technical assistance, and experience with relevant mechanisms.

(b) The technical proposal shall also clearly describe relevant technical knowledge of the transportation sector in Latin America, preferably in Argentina, as it relates to the SOW and demonstrated proficiency with the Spanish language per Section 1 of the SOW.

The RFP respondent(s) shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal and provide an adequate basis for evaluation. RFP respondent(s) are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. No material may be incorporated in the proposal by reference in order to circumvent the page limitation. Please submit the technical proposal as a searchable PDF.

The following documents are not included in the page limitation:

a. Cover Page

b. Table of Contents

c. Executive Summary: Although this section will not be evaluated, if included, it should allow technical reviewers to quickly understand the critical elements of the proposal including the most salient features of the RFP respondents’ technical vision and approach, the key personnel and capabilities to accomplish the desired results. This section shall be limited to 1 page. Any additional pages will not be reviewed.

d. Resume/Curriculum Vitae (CV): Resumes/Curriculum Vitae (CVs) shall include

Spanish language proficiency, and may not exceed 2 pages per person. Any additional pages shall not be reviewed.

VOLUME I(b): PAST PERFORMANCE:

a. Relevant Past Performance Information:

i. For all RFP Respondents submitting a proposal:

RFP respondents shall submit a list of no more than three past performance references within the past five years, consisting of the contract number, contract type (preferably fixed-price contracts), the entity (federal, state, or local Government, or private sector) for which the work was performed, a summary of the relevant work, and the name of the person (e.g. contracting or technical) to be contacted with their address, telephone, and email address. Past performance will be considered relevant if the contract demonstrates relevant experiences that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the effort described in this solicitation.

The Government reserves the right to obtain past performance information from any available source, to include the U.S. Government’s Past Performance

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and may contact customers other than those identified by the RFP Respondent when evaluating past performance.

RFP respondents are authorized to provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the RFP Respondents' corrective actions. The

Government shall consider this information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the RFP Respondent's past performance. The source selection authority shall determine the relevance of similar past performance information.

1. For RFP Respondents WITH existing and relevant USTDA past performance (see definition of relevancy in a.i. above)

Per a.i. above, if some or all of the submitted three past performance references are from USTDA, USTDA will attempt to retrieve records for the referenced past performance effort either from the U.S. Government’s Past Performance

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or from records internal to USTDA or from both. No further action is required by the RFP Respondent.

2. For RFP Respondents WITHOUT existing and relevant

USTDA past performance

Submit the Past Performance Survey (Enclosure 3) to its submitted three references (see a.i.) for completion. The references (not the RFP respondents) must return the completed survey to the email address indicated no later than the closing date of this solicitation. The RFP Respondent is solely responsible for ensuring the survey is completed and returned by the respective references on or before the deadline. Any past performance survey returned directly by the RFP respondents may not be considered. The survey includes instructions that must be reviewed and followed carefully. Responses must be typed into the provided, editable Microsoft Office Word Document Past Performance Survey (RFP

Enclosure 3).

In the case of a RFP respondent without any record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) states that the RFP respondent may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The RFP respondents, in this case, shall be rated as “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)" - which is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

VOLUME II: PRICE

Price Proposal:

(a) RFP respondents shall submit their price proposal using Standard Form (SF) 1449-

Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items. Each RFP respondent should ensure the

CAGE CODE and DUNS Numbers are placed in Block 17A and complete blocks 24 (with pricing information), 30A, 30B, and 30C.

(b) RFP respondents shall also submit a breakdown of the price proposal in a Microsoft Excel

Spreadsheet complete with traceable formulas. The price proposal excel spreadsheet must be accompanied with narratives (to support the price proposal) in a word document. ALL PRICE

NUMBERS SHALL BE ROUNDED UP, (NO CENTS).

(c) RFP Respondent may follow the USTDA’s sample pricing spreadsheet or independently estimate their own (accompanied with narratives) to include their total proposed mix of labor categories, labor rates (fully loaded), and labor days needed to meet all the requirements contained in the SOW.

II. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

a. EVALUATION FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL: The following subfactors are listed in descending order of importance:

Sub-factor 1: Relevant Technical Experience: The RFP respondent's relevant technical background and professional experience in transportation infrastructure projects as it relates to the Statement of Work (SOW) shall be evaluated to determine the likelihood that the RFP respondent can successfully perform the contract requirements and the degree of the risk of non-performance. The RFP respondent's relevant experience developing Terms of Reference and budgets for feasibility studies and technical assistance, and experience with relevant financing mechanisms, shall be evaluated.

Sub-factor 2: Relevant Technical Knowledge: The RFP respondent's relevant technical knowledge of the transportation sector in Latin America, preferably in Argentina, as it relates to the SOW shall be evaluated to determine the likelihood that the RFP respondent can successfully perform the contract requirements and the degree of the risk of non-performance. The RFP respondent's demonstrated proficiency with the Spanish language per Section 1 of the SOW shall be evaluated.

The impact of the ratings of Technical Subfactors 1 and 2 on the overall Technical Factor rating is further explained in this paragraph. If the rating of Technical Subfactor 1 (or Technical

Subfactor 2) is Acceptable, then such a rating will have no positive or negative impact on the overall rating for the Technical Factor. For example, if the rating of Technical Subfactor 1 (or

Technical Subfactor 2) is Acceptable and the rating of Technical Subfactor 2 (or Technical

Subfactor 1) is Outstanding, then the overall Technical Factor rating will be Outstanding. On the other hand, if the rating of Technical Subfactor 1 (or Technical Subfactor 2) is Unacceptable, then such a rating will have a negative impact on the overall rating for the Technical Factor. In that case, the overall Technical rating will be Unacceptable —regardless of the rating of

Technical Subfactor 2.

b. EVALUATION FACTOR 2: RELEVANT PAST PERFORMANCE: Government's intent is to evaluate each RFP respondent's past performance - including technical performance; timeliness of performance; quality/customer satisfaction; and cost control - to determine whether the RFP respondent consistently delivered quality service in a timely manner in the past. This factor will be evaluated on the basis of relevant past performance information, including performance on contracts of a comparable nature scope and complexity to those in the current solicitation. The past performance information to be evaluated includes information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant. The information presented in the RFP respondent’s proposal, together with information from any other sources available to the

Government (e.g., Government-controlled Contractor performance databases and references including contractual, technical, and end-user representatives) may be considered.

In the case of an RFP respondent without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) states that the RFP respondent may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The RFP respondent, in this case, shall be rated as "Neutral" - which is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

c. EVALUATION FACTOR 3: PRICE: A price evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR 13.106-3 to determine completeness (i.e. all information required by the RFP has been submitted and is accurate) and fair and reasonableness. The Government may also conduct price realism for the purpose of assessing whether an RFP respondent’s unrealistically low price reflects on its understanding of the SOW requirements or the risk inherent in the RFP respondent’s approach. Price proposals found to be unrealistically low

(an indication of “buy – in”) will be ineligible for award. The evaluated price will be used in the tradeoff analysis between price and technical factors to determine best value.

Basis For Award: Proposals will be evaluated on the following factors: Technical, Relevant

Past Performance, and Price. Within the Technical Factor, Technical Subfactors 1 and 2 are in descending order of importance. Award will be made, using the tradeoff process, to the contractor whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. The non-price factors

(Technical and Past Performance) when combined are significantly more important than price. However, as technical merit of the proposals becomes more equal, price may become a determining factor.

Table 1. Technical Ratings: Technical factor and sub-factors shall be evaluated using the following adjectival ratings:

Rating Description

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.

Table 2. Past Performance Confidence Assessments: Past Performance factor shall be evaluated using the following adjectival ratings:

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the RFP respondent’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the RFP respondent will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the RFP respondent’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the RFP respondent will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the RFP respondent’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the RFP respondent will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the RFP respondent’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the RFP respondent will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the RFP respondent’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Best Value Award Determination

The Government will make an award to the RFP respondent whose proposal conforms to the

SOW requirements and is determined, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the RFP respondent who gives USTDA the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed the requirements affordably. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced RFP respondent, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Contracting Officer reasonably determines that the technical superiority of the higher priced RFP respondent merits the additional price.

The Government may award based on initial proposals received, without further discussions.

Accordingly, each RFP respondent should submit their proposal to the Government using the most favorable terms from a technical and price standpoint. Pursuant to FAR Part 15.306(c), if discussions are held, the Contracting Officer shall establish a competitive range of the most highly rated proposals. If the number of most highly rated proposals exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range.

Only one award will result from this RFP. Proposals that do not address all requirements presented in the SOW may not be considered for award.

//Signed//

GARTH A. HIBBERT

USTDA Contracting Officer

Enclosures:

1. Standard Form 1449 and Statement of Work

2. Sample Pricing and Estimated Level of Effort Spreadsheet

3. Past Performance Survey