DM_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

COMBINED SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATION: Brazil Water Utility Automation Project

Opportunities Definitional Mission

SOLICITATION NUMBER: 1131PL-17-R-DM51159

ISSUANCE DATE: June 21, 2017

CLOSING DATE: July 5, 2017, 12:00 Noon, local Arlington, VA/Eastern

Time

This request 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); offers are being requested and written solicitation will not be issued. Enclosed are the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the Price Breakout (Price

Proposal Template) for this RFP.

This procurement is a 100 percent set-aside for Small Business under NAICS Code

541690. Contractor use of subcontractors is limited to less than fifty percent of the proposed price. Award is limited to U.S. Firms or U.S. individuals. Contractor and U.S. subcontractor employees used shall be either U.S. citizens on non-U.S. citizens lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States.

Following is an Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items

(APR 2014).

1. Proposal Due Date and Submission

Proposals must be received at contractproposals@ustda.gov no later than:

12:00 Noon, local Arlington, VA/Eastern Time (ET) on Wednesday, July 5, 2017. Please reference the Solicitation Number in the SUBJECT LINE of your email.

Late proposals will be processed in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation guidance. Proposals submitted by facsimile or to alternate email addresses will NOT be accepted.

mailto:contractproposals@ustda.gov

2. Questions Relating to This Solicitation

All questions must be emailed to awilliams@ustda.gov no later than 12:00 Noon, local

Arlington, VA/ET time on Wednesday, June 28, 2017. Please reference the Solicitation

Number in the SUBJECT LINE of your email.

3. Notice Regarding Suspension/Debarment/Ineligibility

Any contract awarded to a Contractor who, at the time of award was 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.

4. 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 Offeror ineligible for award as described in FAR 52.204-7.

Do NOT delay submission of your offer pending receipt of a CAGE code.

5. Inspection and Acceptance

All services are subject to the COR's and/or ACOR’s final approval. All work will be inspected and accepted at USTDA's Office, Arlington, VA.

6. Special Contract Requirements

This solicitation includes the following additional contract requirements and terms and conditions:

a) Future Procurement 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.

b) Embassy Communications: Offerors shall not contact U.S. or foreign Embassy officials in connection to this solicitation. Any communications related to this solicitation or its requirements prior to award may result in award ineligibility.

7. Contract Clauses

FAR Clauses 52.214-4, 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:awilliams@ustda.gov https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/

8. Required Proposal Contents

The Offeror shall confine submission to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal and provide an adequate basis for evaluation. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise matter, 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.

a) Price Proposal– The Offeror shall complete and submit the Price Breakout spreadsheet. All dollar values shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar. The

Offeror shall submit the Price Proposal Breakout as an Excel file and not a PDF or any other file type.

b) Technical Proposal – The Offeror shall submit a Technical proposal, not exceeding

10 pages, that documents the Offeror’s Technical Expertise, Experience, and

Approach (as outlined in the technical evaluation factor(s)). No pricing information shall be included in the Technical Proposal. Please submit the technical proposal as a searchable PDF file.

c) Past Performance Information – Please include reference information for at least one but not more than three clients for relevant work of similar size, scope, and complexity you have performed in the last three years. Please provide the name of the client organization, client point of contact and title, point of contact email address and telephone number, a brief description of scope of work/requirement, contract award value, and the contract period of performance. This will not count towards the page limit. 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.

d) Past Performance Questionnaires –

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

If some or all of the submitted three past performance references (from item c) 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 (enclosed) to its submitted three references

(see item c) for completion. 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. Responses must be typed.

Upon completion, the past performance reference (not the Offeror) should forward the completed questionnaire to USTDA via email to contractproposals@ustda.gov no later than the proposal deadline. The Past

Performance Questionnaire will not count towards the page limit.

e) Resumes – Please provide resumes for proposed personnel to include the level of

Portuguese proficiency as appropriate. Each resume may not exceed 2 pages.

Resumes will not count towards the page limit.

Failure to comply with the solicitation or its terms may result in ineligibility for award.

9. Evaluation Factors for Award

FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation, Commercial Items (available at www.farsite.hill.af.mil under

FAR), is being used. The non-price factors (Evaluation Factors 1, 2, and 3) are listed in order of descending importance and will be used to evaluate all offers.

All non-price evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price (Evaluation Factor 4). However, as technical merit of the proposals becomes more equal, price may become a determining factor.

The RFP respondent shall be evaluated on these factors 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 is encouraged to use specific examples, as applicable, to illustrate technical capabilities and expertise as it relates to the PWS.

Proposals will be evaluated strictly in accordance with its written content. Proposals that merely restate the requirement or state that the requirement will be met, without providing supporting rationale, are not sufficient. Offerors who fail to meet the minimum technical requirements of the solicitation will be rated as Unacceptable and will be ineligible for award.

A. Evaluation Factor 1: Relevant Technical Experience

The RFP respondent's relevant technical background and professional experience in water projects as it relates to the Performance Work Statement (PWS) 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 also be evaluated.

mailto:contractproposals@ustda.gov http://www.farsite.hill.af.mil/

B. Evaluation Factor 2: Country and Language Experience

The RFP respondent's relevant technical knowledge of and professional experience in the Brazilian water sector as it relates to the PWS, as well as Portuguese language capability, shall be evaluated to determine the likelihood that the RFQ respondent can successfully perform the contract requirements and the degree of the risk of non-performance.

C. Evaluation Factor 3: Past Performance

The Government will conduct a performance risk assessment based on the quality, relevancy, and recency of the Offeror's past performance, as well as that of its major Subcontractors, if proposed, as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort.

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.

Because of the wide variety of past performance history of individual Offerors, the

Government is not required to ensure that an equal number of references be obtained for each

Offeror. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the Offerors, it is incumbent upon the Offerors to explain the relevance of the data provided.

Offerors are reminded that the burden of proving low performance risk rests with the

Offerors.

In the case of an Offeror 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

Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Offeror, in this case, shall be rated as "Neutral" - which is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

D. Evaluation Factor 4: Price

The Government will evaluate price to determine the following:

Completeness: All information required by the solicitation has been submitted and is accurate.

Reasonableness: Price is fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR.

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 non-price factors to determine best value. No adjectival ratings will be used to evaluate Price.

In support of the Price Factor, the Government is providing the following estimated labor mix for this requirement only as guidance based on historical data and our experience.

1. Technical Specialist – 45 days

2. Financial Specialist – 9 days

However, the Offeror is not required to use or follow the estimated labor mix estimate. Labor mix depends on the performer’s experience and expertise level and therefore will be different for each party. The Offeror is expected to determine its own labor mix/level of effort for this requirement.

Technical factor and any technical sub-factors shall be evaluated using the following adjectival ratings:

Table 1. Technical 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.

The Past Performance factor shall be evaluated using the following adjectival ratings:

Table 2. Past Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

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

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

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

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

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: The Government will use Trade-off Source Selection

Procedures to evaluate offers and determine the best value. The Government will award a contract resulting from this RFP to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the RFP requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation) and is determined, based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives USTDA the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed the requirement affordably. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Contracting Officer reasonably determines that the technical approach of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference.

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

Accordingly, each Contractor should submit their proposal to the Government using the most favorable terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it is deemed necessary. In such instance, the Contracting Officer will 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.

GARTH A. HIBBERT

Contracting Officer

Office of Acquisition Management