ENCL_1_COMBINED_SYNOPSIS_SOLICITATION_1131PL19RDS11080.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: Regional Sub-Saharan Africa

Renewable Energy Project Desk Study (DS) Series

SOLICITATION NUMBER: 1131PL19RDS11080

ISSUANCE DATE: February 12, 2019 CLOSING DATE: March 4, 2019, 1:00 P.M., Arlington, VA Time

This request for commercial item prepared in accordance with the format in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.6 as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only RFP; offers are being requested and written solicitation will not be issued.

This solicitation is being issued in accordance with (IAW) FAR Part 12. The Government may award multiple contracts resulting from this solicitation to the respondents who are deemed responsible and are determined, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government may elect to award to a single offeror or to award up to but not to exceed three (3) offerors for the services under this solicitation. Each Offeror will be entitled to prepare a minimum of three (3) Project Reports, as a result of the award. Nine (9) additional Project Reports will be included as Options to be exercised at the sole discretion of the Government.

This procurement is a 100 percent Small Business Set-Aside with a small business size standard of $15M annual sales 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 FOLLOWING ITEMS REPRESENT THE "PROPOSAL PACKAGE" THAT

SHOULD BE RETURNED IN RESPONSE TO THIS SOLICITATION (Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (OCT 2018)).

1. Proposal Due Date:

Your proposal must be received no later than 1:00 P.M., local Arlington, VA time on Monday, March 4, 2019. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation guidance.

2. Offer Submission:

Submit your proposal by email to contractproposals@ustda.gov which is due no later than 1:00 P.M., local Arlington, VA time on Monday, March 4, 2019. Proposals submitted by facsimile or to alternate email addresses will NOT be accepted.

3. Questions Relating to This Solicitation:

All questions must be emailed to the POC listed in the solicitation at contractproposals@ustda.gov no later than 1:00 P.M., February 19, 2019. 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 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.

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

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

6. Special Contract Requirements: This Request for Proposal (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:contractproposals@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 5 of this RFP**

Technical proposal shall not exceed 5 pages in length. Font type shall be “Times New Roman, Size 12”. Proposals not in compliance with the requirement will be determined non-responsive and will not be evaluated or eligible for award.

The technical proposal shall clearly describe relevant technical background in performing work in the renewable energy sector in the Regional Sub-Saharan Africa as it relates to the Performance Work Statement; including experience with clean energy project definition and development, completing technical due diligence for renewable energy projects, developing budgets and terms of reference for technical assistance or feasibility studies of similar scope, and/or conducting technical, economic and financial evaluations for the types of renewable energy projects as it relates to the Performance Work Statement will be evaluated to determine the likelihood that the RFP respondent can successfully perform the contract requirements.

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) submitted as part of the technical proposal are exclusive of the 5 page limitation; however, resumes/CVs may not exceed 3 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 three 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 an 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 a price proposal with breakdown in a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet or the attached Price Proposal 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.

(b) RFP Respondent may follow the USTDA’s sample pricing spreadsheet or independently estimate theirs (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 PWS.

9. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Evaluation Factors for Award: FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation, Commercial Items (available at www.farsite.hill.af.mil under FAR), is being used. (b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The following non-price factors are of equal importance and will be used to evaluate all offers. All evaluation factors, other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important that cost or price.

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. RFQ respondents who fail to meet the minimum technical requirements of the solicitation will be rated as Unacceptable and will be ineligible for award.

http://www.farsite.hill.af.mil/

10. EVALUATION FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL (The following sub-factors are of equal importance)

Sub-factor 1: Relevant Technical Experience and Education Background:

Qualification and professional experience performing activities of relevant similar scope and complexity to the requirement; which may include, but are not limited to experience with clean energy project definition and development, completing technical due diligence for renewable energy projects, developing budgets and terms of reference for technical assistance or feasibility studies of similar scope, and/or conducting technical, economic and financial evaluations for the types of renewable energy projects identified in the Statement of Work.

Sub-factor 2: Prior Regional Experience: Prior relevant energy sector experience in Sub-Saharan Africa 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.

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 respondents' proposals, 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.

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 PWS 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 Contract Award: Proposals will be evaluated on the following factors: Technical, Relevant Past Performance, and Price. Award will be made, using the tradeoff source selection procedures 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.

Technical factor and 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.

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.

Best Value Award Determination

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

The Government may elect to award to a single offeror or to award up to but not to exceed three (3) offerors for the services under this solicitation. Proposals that do not address all requirements presented in the PWS may not be considered for award.

//Signed//

TYRONE W. JOHNSON

Contract Specialist