13_Sections_L_and_M_26_June_2026.pdf

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1.0. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.1. This acquisition is limited to qualified sources.

1.2. The Contracting Officer (“CO”) has determined there is a probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the CO will review this determination, and if in the CO’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost and pricing data will be requested, including certified cost and pricing data.

However, if at any time during this competition, the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the CO to determine the price fair and reasonable.

2.0 SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

2.1. Instructions to the Offerors (ITO):

This section of the ITO provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested by the ITO and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offeror shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in this solicitation.

2.2. Include Sufficient Detail:

The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims.

2.3. Proposal Acceptance and Validity Dates:

The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the model contract/solicitation. The offer shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation that the proposal is valid until this date.

2.4 Electronic Version

The proposal's electronic copies shall be submitted in a format readable and searchable by Adobe Acrobat Professional, MS Office Word, MS Office Excel. Ensure all graphics generated in MS Office (including tables, charts, and graphs) in the proposal's electronic version are pasted into the proposal as MS Office objects to preserve searchability (do not paste as picture only). Ensure all formulas used are included in Excel spreadsheets.

3.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

3.1. Point of Contact:

The contracting officer (CO) and contract specialist (buyer) are the sole points of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the CO and buyer.

3.2. Discrepancies:

If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the buyer/CO in writing with supporting rationale. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without negotiations.

3.3. Debriefings:

The CO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competition IAW RFO Part 15 Procedures, whereupon offerors may request and receive a debriefing.

Offerors desiring debriefing must make their request IAW the requirements of RFO Part 15.

4.0 EVALUTION CRITERIA

4.1. Factor 1 Technical - Schedule

Offerors must submit a project schedule demonstrating a clear understanding of project scope requirements, and a reasonable approach to contract execution. The schedule should strive for detail and completeness commensurate with the proposal stage, acknowledging that some level of refinement will occur during contract execution. The schedule shall include the following:

• Work Breakdown Structure (WBS): A WBS shall be provided, breaking down the contract into manageable work packages. The WBS should be sufficiently hierarchical to provide insight into the major phases and key activities of the contract. The WBS should clearly identify the major deliverables and work packages (SOO, Section 4 paragraph B).

• Milestones: Clearly defined milestones with specific completion criteria shall be identified for the major phases, key deliverables and logical progression of work (SOO, Section 4 paragraph B).

• Task Durations: Realistic durations should be assigned to the identified tasks and work packages. Offerors should provide a basis for the estimated durations, such as historical data, industry best practices, or expert judgment. Detailed justifications for each individual task duration are not required at this stage, but a general rationale for the overall project timeline should be provided (SOO, Section 4 paragraph B).

The schedule shall be submitted in either Microsoft Excel (.xls, .xlsx), Word, PowerPoint or Project (.mpp) and contain no more than 10 pages.

4.2. Factor 2 Price Proposal

Completion of the RFP, Section B Schedule will represent the price proposal.

Reasonableness

IAW RFO 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required within this volume to support a determination of price reasonableness. Data shall be provided IAW RFO 15.403. If, after proposal receipt, the PCO determines that there is insufficient data available to make this determination and none of the exceptions in RFO 15.403-2 apply, the offeror shall be required to submit additional cost or pricing data.

Offers shall be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate they meet all cost and price criteria specified in Section M, where applicable. If only one offer is received, the Government will follow procedures found in R-DFARS 215.202-71.

5.0 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

5.1 Solicitation/Representation and Certifications:

The purpose of this section is to provide information to the Government for preparing the contract document and supporting file. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the solicitation, and Sections A through K. This includes:

Section A – Solicitation/Contract Form: Completion of blocks 13 and 27 of the SF1447.

Signature by the offeror on the SF 1447 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept.

Section B – Supplies or Services and Costs/Prices: All pricing information shall be addressed in Section B – The Schedule of the RFP. Information shall be limited to Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), Sub-CLIN, including unit and extended pricing as specified in Section B.

Section F – Deliveries or Performance: Completion of Section B delivery requirements by providing an accurate, realistic delivery date for each CLIN/Sub-CLIN.

Section K – Complete Representations and Certifications

Section I – Contract Clauses: Complete all clauses requiring contractor fill-in.

5.2 Exceptions to Terms and Conditions:

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including but not limited to, terms and conditions, representations and certifications, Statement of Objective requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement MAY result in an offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost and specific requirements of the solicitation.

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award:

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul (RFO) 15.2, Evaluation and Award. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk and Cost/Price. This acquisition will utilize qualified sources. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the RFO, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to award without negotiations; therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best price.

The government does however, reserve the right to conduct negotiations if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

1.2 Number of Contracts Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor for award, however; the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal uncertainty. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror’s proposal not meeting the Government’s requirements is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the award.

1.4 Clarifications:

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold clarifications, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

2.1. Evaluation Factors:

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical - Schedule Factor 2: Price

In accordance with RFO 15.104(d), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

1. Technical Rating: The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. It will receive one of the color/adjectival ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2A – Technical Rating Method, excerpted below. The technical ratings focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color/adjectival rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical factor requirements.

Factor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color/adjectival rating for the Technical factor.

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

2. Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of technical risk considers the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the requirement which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses. It considers the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Rating

Description – Technical Risk

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable

Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level

Factor 1 Technical – Schedule

This factor will be evaluated to the degree to which the schedule submitted by the contractor demonstrates a clear understanding of project scope requirements, a reasonable approach to project execution, and detail and completeness commensurate with the proposal stage.

The schedule must include a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) which will be evaluated to the degree to which it shows manageable work packages, provides insight into major phases and key activities, and identifies major deliverables. (SOO Section 4, paragraph B)

The schedule must include clearly defined milestones which will be evaluated to the degree to which it shows the major phases, key deliverables and logical progression of work. (SOO Section 4, paragraph B)

The schedule must include task duration which will be evaluated for the degree to which it shows realistic durations for identified tasks and work packages. (SOO Section 4, paragraph B)

The submission must be readable by Microsoft Excel (.xls, .xlsx), Word, PowerPoint or Project (.mpp) format and contains no more than 10 pages.

Factor 2 Price Proposal Completion of the RFP, Section B Schedule will represent the price proposal.

2.2. Evaluation Methodology:

The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for Reasonableness and Total Evaluated Price (TEP), including all prime and major subcontractors. The TEP will be a consideration in the best value tradeoff award decision. The Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) prices proposed used to calculate the TEP will become contractually binding.

1. Reasonableness

The offeror's cost/price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in RFO 15.404, to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, as described in RFO 15.403-2(c)(1) or through price and cost analysis.

2. Total Evaluated Price

The Government will use the total for all CLINs to evaluate price.