B09(a)_-_Amend_1_-_Addendum_1_0001.pdf

Addendum 1

140P2125R0026 michelle_shoshone@nps.gov

OFFER SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND BASIS OF AWARD

UNARMED SECURITY GUARD SERVICES

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1. Interested firms or joint venture entities (here after referred to as Offerors) must submit proposals demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the work as outlined in the base SOW in accordance with the criteria described herein.

1.2. This is a best value tradeoff acquisition for Indian Small Business Economic Enterprise (ISBEE) set-aside competitive acquisition for the award of a single Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract (SATOC) firm fixed price contract for Unarmed Security Guards for the National Park Service, United States Park Police. The Government will evaluate offers in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm fixed price SATOC to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined by the source selection authority to conform to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering all non-price factors described herein, and price.

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

2.1. The Contracting Officer will award a single firm fixed price SATOC to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is determined by the source selection authority to conform to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering all non-price factors described herein, and price. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined are considered significantly more important than price; however the seed task order awards may not exceed the funds available for this project. The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best valued proposal. After the Government individually evaluates and rates each proposal, the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offerors. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR

15.001. If there is a lower priced, conforming offer(s), the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal would justify award to that offeror.

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.1. The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions.

However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines discussions are necessary. Therefore, offers should be submitted on the most favorable terms the offeror can submit to the Government. Do not assume offerors will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their offer.

3.2. The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experience.

Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the offeror. The

140P2125R0026 michelle_shoshone@nps.gov

Government may reject incomplete proposals after initial evaluation without further consideration. Complete offers shall meet the basic requirements identified in the solicitation.

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

Volume I: Technical Proposal

Factor Description Relative Importance

Factor 1 Security Guard Services Experience

This is the most important factor (slightly more important than Factor 2).

This factor is significantly more important than total evaluated price.

Factor 2 Key Personnel

(a) Project Manager

(b) Operations Supervisor

This is the second most important factor (slightly less important than Factor 1, slightly more than Factor 3). This factor is significantly more important than total evaluated price.

Factor 3 Past Performance

This is the third most important factor (slightly less important than Factor 2).

This factor is significantly more important than total evaluated price.

Volume II: Price Proposal

Factor Description Rating Relative Importance

Factor 1 Price Schedule Total Evaluated Price

This factor is significantly less important than Factors 1-2 when combined.

5.0 VOLUME 1 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: FACTOR 1: SECURITY GUARD

SERVICES EXPERIENCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.1.1 The offeror shall submit information for up to three (3) projects* that best demonstrates the offeror’s experience with security guard services that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to this project as described in the solicitation’s statement of work and demonstrated familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions. Note: To be considered, the project must

140P2125R0026 michelle_shoshone@nps.gov have been completed by the offeror, i.e., not the offeror’s subcontractor. Removed on Amendment 01 The description of security guard services experience shall be no longer than three (3) pages in length, with Offerors specifically addressing the following:

(a) Size, type of work, and complexity of the work to include previous similar projects;

(b) Dates (well under way or completed no more than five (5) years preceding date of solicitation); and

(c) Firm’s role and extent of work self-performed.

To be evaluated, each project must have been completed or must be substantially complete** by the offeror within five years of the date that offers are due.

*A maximum of three projects will be evaluated. If an offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than five projects, only the first three projects will be evaluated. Offerors should describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess the projects against the evaluation criteria described in the solicitation.

**Substantially complete is defined as being 50% complete by the date that offers are due.

If an offeror submits a project that it represents is “substantially complete,” the offeror must reasonably explain why the project is considered at least 50% complete. If an offeror submits an ongoing project without providing an accompanying reasonable explanation that explains how the project is at least 50% complete, the Government reserves the right to reject the project.

Note: The project description submitted for each project shall not exceed one (1) page per project.

5.2 VOLUME 1 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FACTOR 1: SECURITY GUARD

SERVICES EXERPIENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA

5.2.1. The Government will comparatively evaluate the extent of recent, relevant experience of the contractor as relevant to their role on this project. The Government may place greater importance on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations. Federal Government project experience will not be evaluated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project experience. The Government will also comparatively evaluate the extent of recent, relevant experience of unarmed guard services as relevant to their role on this project.

5.2.2. The Offeror must submit the requested information to demonstrate a record of recent, relevant, experience which may include similar state or local government or private counterparts. Recent experience includes projects well underway (see above criteria) or those completed and turned over within five (5) years of the proposal issue date for this RFP. Joint

140P2125R0026 michelle_shoshone@nps.gov

Venture partners, if applicable, shall each demonstrate experience commensurate with their role on this project.

5.2.3. The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), other Government appraisal systems or to interview owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

To receive credit for extent (amount) of experience, the contractor shall demonstrate a history of recent, relevant experience. Experience of a parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company will not be considered if the offeror fails to demonstrate what resources of the parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company will be provided or relied upon or fails to demonstrate the existence of a contractual or meaningful relationship with the parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company. Experience under a previous business arrangement will not be considered relevant if the firm’s role on the submitted project is not considered relevant to their anticipated role on this project.

5.2.4 The Government will consider extent of recent experience, degree of relationship of such experience to this project, demonstrated familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions.

Some examples of relevancy to this project include:

(a) Size, type of work, and complexity of the work to include previous similar projects;

(b) Dates (well under way or completed no more than five (5) years preceding date of Solicitation); and

(c) Firm's role and extent of work self-performed.

5.3 VOLUME 1 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FACTOR 2: KEY PERSONNEL

5.3.1 The offeror shall submit narratives, resumes and experience of the Project Manager and Operations Supervisor as separate sub-factors as identified below.

Factor 3(a): Project Manager Factor 3(b): Operations Supervisor

5.3.2 Subfactor 3(a) shall include the narrative, resume and experience of the Project Manager and describe the extend of past performance in the technical knowledge of common security guard screening equipment and experience with maintaining an adequate staff.

The Contractor shall identify and provide a one (1) page resume in addition to a narrative for the individual who will act as the PM. The PM will be the Contractor’s local representative to oversee the entire security operation of this Contract. The PM shall have at least three (3) years of supervisory experience and at least (2) years of prior contract managerial experience.

The narrative information for the Project Manager will contain the following information:

140P2125R0026 michelle_shoshone@nps.gov

● Describe the extent of past performance of the PM in the technical knowledge of x-ray machines, hand held and walk through magnetometers, explosive trace detection systems, and identifying dangerous/deadly objects in baggage or on persons similar in magnitude and complexity to this Contract.

● Describe the extent of past performance of the PM in performing contract administrative functions in order to continuously maintain an adequate staff with suitable expertise to assure work is completed in accordance with contract requirements. This may include, but is not limited to, hiring, firing, payroll, uniforms, dosimeter usage and tracking, training, certification tracking, scheduling of normal operations and special events, as well as ensuring and maintaining the Quality Control Plan.

5.3.3 Subfactor 3(b) shall include the narrative, resume and experience of the Operations Supervisor and describe the past performance in the daily oversight of security operations and supervisory experience.

The Contractor shall identify and provide a one (1) page resume in addition to the narrative for any individuals who will perform duties as an Operations Supervisor (OS).

The OS will be responsible for the daily oversight of all security operations, as set forth in this SOW, at all Security Posts, Screening Sites, or during Special Events.

The OS must be an individual of unquestionable integrity who displays a mature attitude, exercises good judgment, is sensitive to cultural differences and to special need visitors, and enhances customer service at every phase of security operations, especially the Security Screening Sites.

The OS shall have at least one (1) year of supervisory experience. The Contractor may propose, by written request, an employee for a supervisory position who lacks the above experience, provided that the Contractor offers evidence of similar leadership experience. The acceptance of such an alternative shall be at the discretion of the CO.

Provide narrative information describing the extent of past performance by the OS in technical knowledge of x-ray machines, metal detectors, explosive trace detection systems, hand-wand operations, general radio/telephone dispatching operations and identifying dangerous deadly objects in baggage or on persons similar in magnitude and complexity to this Contract. The narrative should include any supervisory experience, skills, or abilities that make this person suitable for the position.

140P2125R0026 michelle_shoshone@nps.gov

5.4 VOLUME 1 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FACTOR 3: KEY PERSONNEL

EVALUATION CRITERIA

5.4.1 The Government will comparatively evaluate the offeror’s key personnel to determine the offeror which is best suited and provides the best value in relation to the work as outlined in the statement of work and the narratives, resumes and experience of the Project Manager and Operations Supervisor.

5.4.2 Subfactors 3(a) and 3(b) which do not address the topics found at 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 shall be considered technically unacceptable.

5.5 VOLUME 1 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.1.2 For each project submitted, the offeror also shall provide past performance information:

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, submit it with the proposal.

If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, submit a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for the project, provided as an attachment to this solicitation. Offerors are advised to ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS evaluation is available.

• If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ. Offerors should follow up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Michelle Shoshone, via email at michelle_shoshone@nps.gov, prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line.

• PPQs are source selection materials. All successfully submitted PPQs will receive an email confirmation upon receipt. If the offeror does not receive the confirmation, it is the offeror’s responsibility to follow up to ensure the Government has received the information.

5.1.3 Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other procurements. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Offerors may provide explanation on problems encountered on past projects and the corrective actions taken by the offeror.

mailto:michelle_shoshone@nps.gov

140P2125R0026

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including CPARS, using all CAGE/DUNS/UIE numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the offeror’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the offeror’s performance capability, and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

5.1.4 While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate, and complete past performance information rests with the offeror.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

5.2.1 The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. The evaluation method that the Government will use with respect to Factor 2 – Past Performance is detailed below.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. For this solicitation, recent projects are those completed or substantially completed (as defined above) within five (5) years of the date that proposals are due.

The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the work required by this RFP. There are four levels of relevancy as shown in the Table below.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Description Very

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude Relevant of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

5.2.2 In determining the relevancy of each submitted project, the Government will consider the following:

• The extent to which the submitted project involved producing mockups

• The extent to which the submitted project demonstrates experience manufacturing benches IAW mockup patterns.

• The extent to which the submitted project involved casting up to 800 benches over an extended period of time similar to that listed in the SOW

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation, quality, is to determine how well the offeror performed on its past performance projects.

5.2.3 A final Performance Confidence Assessment rating will be given for this factor based on the assessment of recent and relevant past performance information and the assessment of the quality of past performance on prior contract efforts. The Government will review the past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings using the Table below.

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.

Neutral Confidence

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.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will be able to 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.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for which information on past performance is not available, the offeror may receive a Neutral Confidence rating which is neither favorable nor unfavorable; it is considered neutral.

6.0 VOLUME II: FACTOR 1 - PRICE

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.1.1 Submit a properly completed Pricing Schedule, containing offered line item and total pricing. For unit price items, ensure the number of units multiplied by the unit price equals the extended price exactly.

The offeror’s price shall contain all costs to complete the work to include profit, all overhead, labor burden, insurance, adjustments to listed prices, general and administrative expenses, Sub- Contractor mark-up, and all other costs.

6.1.2 Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate the price schedule, the Government will request a price breakdown of the Contract Line items in Excel format. The Government will provide details on where and how to send the breakdown. This information will not be needed sooner than three (3) working days after the offer submission due date. This information may be required for the initial offer and, if requested, for any revised offers. This information is not an opportunity for an offeror to revise its non-price or price offer.

6.1.3 Price will be determined by the total evaluated price presented in the Price Schedule, will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness using a price analysis.

The price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be requested and used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

6.2 VOLUME II: FACTOR 1 - PRICE EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.2.1 Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of price analysis and comparison to the prices of other offerors and the independent Government estimate. The price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc, and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as overhead, etc.

to the appropriate contract line items.

6.2.2 If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

6.2.3 Quantities in the price schedule are estimates for evaluation purposes only and do not create additional obligations. The rates will be binding for all orders.

7.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

140P2125R0026 michelle_shoshone@nps.gov

7.1.2 An SSEB will be established to conduct the comparative evaluation of offers received in response to this solicitation. The comparative evaluation will be based on the content of the offer, as well as information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any information incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

7.2. PROPOSAL EVALUATION

7.2.1. The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor.

7.2.2 The Government intends to award without discussions. Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to evaluate proposals. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it.

7.2.3 A “Competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals in the event that the Government decides that discussions with offerors are required or are considered to be in the Government’s best interests. In such an event, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range of all the most highly rated proposals.

7.2.4 If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with those offerors in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306(d). During discussions, the Government may ask the Offeror to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it.

7.2.5 Upon conclusion of discussions, those offerors still considered the most highly rated, will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection.

7.3. DEFINITIONS

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength: Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

Significant Strength: A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably enhances the probability of successful contract performance.

Uncertainty: Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

140P2125R0026 michelle_shoshone@nps.gov

Deviation: Proposal implies or specifically offers a deviation below the specified criteria. The offeror may or may not have called the deviation to the Government’s attention. A deviation is a deficiency. The proposal must conform to the solicitation requirements for award.

7.4 EVALUATION RATING SYSTEM

7.4.1 General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor. The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements. They will not compare proposals at this time. After all proposals are rated, the Government will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other in order to determine which offeror provides the best value to the Government.

7.4.2 Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and required clarifications.

7.4.3 Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of “Outstanding,” “Good,” “Acceptable,” “Marginal,” or “Unacceptable” to each factor (except the Past Performance Factor), which reflect the Government's confidence in each offeror's ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned using the following criteria, which incorporate a proposal risk assessment:

Adjectival 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.