1131PL20RDM21165 COMBINED SYNOPSIS SOLICITATION ALGERIA DM.pdf

COMBINED/SYNOPSIS SOLICITATION

SOLICITATION TITLE: Algeria for Information and Communications Technology

Definitional Mission (DM))

SOLICITATION NUMBER: 1131PL20RDM21165

ISSUANCE DATE: June 11, 2020 CLOSING DATE: June 26, 2020, at 4:00 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 IAW FAR Subpart 15.203. The Government will offer one award resulting from this solicitation to the offeror who is deemed responsible and is determined, based on the evaluation factors and sub factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

This procurement is a 100 percent set-aside for Small Business under NAICS Code 541690.

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. Contractor use of subcontractors is limited to less than fifty percent of the proposed price. International transportation and insurance must have their nationality; source and origin in the U.S., local lodging, food and transportation in the host country are not subject to this restriction.

The Government intends to award a Firm-Fixed Price (Fixed Labor Rate/Labor Day) contract with Cost Reimbursable Line Items for Travel with an 24-month period of performance as a result of this RFP.

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)).

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 on Friday, June 26th, 2020 Arlington, VA Time. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f).

2. Proposal Submission: Send your proposal by email to contractproposals@ustda.gov which is due no later than 4:00 P.M., local Arlington, VA Time on Friday, June 26th, 2020. Proposals 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 Tyrone Johnson at contractproposals@ustda.gov . The question cutoff date is 1:00 PM, Arlington, VA Time on June 15, 2020. 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 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. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS:

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 also clearly describe a work plan that includes a proposed travel plan, target due dates for deliverables and a strategy to identify and evaluate project opportunities; and Staffing Plan for carrying out this Definitional Mission (including a breakdown by staff person and corresponding level of effort.)

(b) The Offeror shall provide examples and effectively demonstrate relevant experience and expertise: (1) providing sector-specific guidance; (2) developing Terms of Reference (TORs) for feasibility studies, technical assistance, and/or pilot projects; and (3) conducting technical, economic, and financial evaluation of ICT projects. The Offeror is encouraged to use specific examples, as applicable, to illustrate technical capabilities as it relates to the Performance Work Statement (PWS), as well as experience developing successful ICT sector projects.

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

(d) The Offeror shall have at least one (1) employee with relevant experience in the ICT sector, as outlined in Sub-Factor 1, that is proficient (i.e., speaking and reading) in French at the advanced professional proficiency level (Level 4) (as defined by the U.S. Department of State) (i.e., for speaking: able to use the language fluently and accurately on all levels; and for reading: nearly native ability to read and understand extremely difficult or abstract prose).

The Offeror may satisfy this requirement through the use of interpreters with appropriate experience in ICT development as it relates to the PWS. The Offeror’s demonstrated proficiency in French per Section D.1.2. of the PWS shall be evaluated.

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) as part of the proposal, may not exceed 3 pages per person. Any additional pages shall not be reviewed.

e. Past Performance Information: Offerors shall submit a list of no more than three (3) most recent Government and/or commercial contracts in performance at any point during the five

(5) years prior to the proposal submission date, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. A brief description of the effort, name of the Agency/organization the contract is/was with, contract period of performance, total contract value, point of contact for each submitted effort, and contact information (name and phone number/email) must also be provided.

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 the 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 Offeror when evaluating past performance.

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).

9. SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION:

Evaluation Factors for Award: FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation, Commercial Items (available at www.farsite.hill.af.mil under FAR), is being used. 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/price, when combined, are significantly more important that cost/price. As technical merit of the proposals becomes more equal, cost/price may become a determining factor.

a. EVALUATION FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL: The following sub-factors are of equal importance:

• Sub-Factor 1: Relevant Technical Experience and Expertise: The Offeror shall have at least 10 years of relevant experience specifically related to the information and communications technology (ICT) sector, including substantial, demonstrable technical knowledge of and experience in the use of digitization to enhance government services and operations, the development of broadband infrastructure, including end-to-end capabilities and data centers, and cloud infrastructure.

• Sub-Factor 2: Prior Country or Regional Experience: The Offeror’s relevant technical knowledge of the country/region as it relates to the PWS and ICT development shall be evaluated to determine the likelihood that the Offeror can successfully perform the contract requirements and the degree of the risk of non-performance.

b. EVALUATION FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE: Relevant contracts/projects of similar size, scope and complexity.

c. EVALUATION FACTOR 3: 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.

Evaluation Approach

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by Government personnel. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions based upon the initial evaluation of proposals. The proposals/quotations will be evaluated strictly in accordance with its written content.

Proposals/quotations which 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 requirements of the solicitation will be rated Marginal or Unacceptable and will be ineligible for award.

(1) Technical Evaluation Approach: The proposal will be evaluated to determine:

a) 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.

b) The Offeror shall provide examples supporting such experience and expertise as it relates to the PWS and 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.

c) The extent to which it demonstrates a clear understanding of requirements presented in the solicitation.

d) The extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable.

e) The level of confidence provided the Government with respect to the Offeror's methods and approach in successfully meeting and/or exceeding the requirements in a timely manner.

f) Whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation.

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.

(2) Past Performance Evaluation Approach: The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an Offeror's likelihood of success in fulfilling the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that Offeror's record of past performance. In this context, “Offeror” refers to the proposed prime contractor. The Government will conduct a performance risk assessment based on the quality, relevancy, and recency of the Offeror's past performance, 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 and may contact customers other than those identified by the Offeror 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 and recent past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

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 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.

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

//Signed//

TYRONE JOHNSON

USTDA Contract Specialist

Enclosures:

1. Performance Work Statement (PWS)

2. Standard Form 1449

3. Sample DM Pricing Worksheet