4.10 PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS.docx

4.10 PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

The following items must be submitted with the proposal for it to be determined compliant and responsive. Noncompliant and nonresponsive proposals may be removed from further evaluation at the Government’s discretion.

1. SF 1442, completed and signed by a person able to bind the offeror, in accordance with FAR 4.102.

2. Amendments. Signed SF 30(s), if any are issued, and/or acknowledgment in Box 19 of the SF 1442.

3. VAAR 852.219-75, VA Notice of Limitations on Subcontracting—Certificate of Compliance for Services and Construction (NOV 2022), completed and signed.

4. Offer Guarantee/Bid Bond- in the proper form and amount, furnished by the time set for receipt of proposals. Failure to furnish it may be cause for rejection.

5. Representations and Certifications. All provisions and clauses in the solicitation that require completion by the offeror must be completed and submitted with the offer.

6. Price Breakout. Complete all highlighted areas. If an item does not apply, enter N/A or $0.00.

7. Technical Capability (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3).

Part 1, “Certifications.” Begin with a table listing each proposed person by name and role (installation, tightness testing, or site assessment) and the certification held (ICC U1, ICC U3, and, if applicable, Washington State U7 or another qualification accepted under WAC 173-360A-0930). Follow with a legible copy of each certification showing the holder’s name, certification number, and expiration date. Certifications that are expired, illegible, or expire before the end of the anticipated period of performance do not count. A proposal that does not identify U1- and U3-certified personnel may be rated Unacceptable.

2, “Project Schedule.” Submit a 90-calendar-day schedule (Gantt chart or table), counted from contract award, listing each milestone and any lead times to complete this requirement.

Part 3, “Technical Submittals.” Organize in this order, with each item identified by name and marked with manufacturer, model number, and part number:

· Under Dispenser Containment (UDC) assemblies

· Extractor valve containment sump and traffic-rated manhole assembly

· Double-wall OPW flexible fuel piping

· Leak detection sensors (UDC and sump)

· Veeder-Root TLS-4 components and monitoring probes For each item, include the manufacturer data sheet and sourcing information (stocked or special order, supplier, lead time, and planned delivery date).

Submittals that are incomplete, unmarked, or do not identify a specific model may be rated Marginal or Unacceptable.

NOTE: Submittals provided with the proposal are for evaluation only and do not constitute approval or acceptance of any equipment. Final submittals are due within five (5) business days after contract award and are subject to COR review and approval. The contractor shall verify all site conditions before ordering or installing equipment and is responsible for all costs associated with equipment that does not fit existing conditions or is not approved.

8. Past Performance. Submit a separate PDF attachment titled “Past Performance” with three (3) to five (5) projects completed within the last three (3) years before the solicitation issue date. For each project provide:

· Project name, location, and contract or task order number.

· Customer name and current point of contact (name, phone, email).

· Contract value, start date, and completion date.

· The offeror’s role (prime or subcontractor), and for a subcontractor the percentage of work performed. If subcontractors were used to demonstrate experience, their roles and percentages.

· A description of the work, including its major or critical aspects, stating which relevant criteria it met: UDC or extractor valve containment sump installation on a regulated UST system; work under state Department of Ecology (or equivalent) oversight; leak detection or monitoring equipment integration or programming.

· The CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System) record or other performance evaluation, if one exists.

The Government may verify the information through CPARS, other Government performance data sources, references, and its own knowledge. A project without a working point of contact may receive no credit. An offeror without relevant past performance shall state “None.”

BASIS OF AWARD AND EVALUATION

The Government will use the best value tradeoff process in FAR 15. A firm fixed price award will be made to the offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation, is rated “Acceptable” or higher for Technical Capability, is at a fair and reasonable price, and represents the best value to the Government, all factors considered.

The Government may reject any or all proposals and may waive informalities or minor irregularities. The government intends to make one award, reserves the right to make no award, and intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to hold them.

Proposals will be evaluated by a technical evaluation board appointed by the Contracting Officer. Each evaluator will review proposals against the evaluation factors in this solicitation, and the board will reach a consensus rating for each factor. The consensus evaluation reflects the board’s collective judgment and is not a mathematical average of individual ratings.

The Government will make an award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines they are necessary.

Evaluation factors: Technical Capability, Past Performance, and Price. Technical Capability and Past Performance, when combined, are equal to Price.

1. Technical Capability has three elements of equal importance: (1) personnel certifications, (2) equipment technical submittals and sourcing, and (3) the 90-day project schedule.

Ratings: Technical Capability has three elements of equal importance: certifications, equipment submittals and sourcing, and the 90-day project schedule.

Technical Capability has three elements of equal importance: (1) certifications, (2) equipment submittals and sourcing, and (3) the 90-day project schedule.

Overall Technical Capability rating. An offeror rated Unacceptable will no longer be considered for award. An offeror rated Marginal in any areas may be removed from further consideration or addressed in discussions, at the Government’s discretion.

2. Past Performance is evaluated for recency (within three years) and relevance, and one confidence rating is assigned to each offeror. Relevancy:

2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

3. Past Performance Confidence Ratings

3. Price. Offerors shall verify that their prices are complete and accurate by filling out the Price Schedule Tab and the Items Tab for the total firm-fixed priced for all work as outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW). See Attachment B – Price Cost Schedule.

Technical Capability and Past Performance, when combined, are equal to Price. Technical Capability and Past Performance are of equal importance Binding commitments. Final submittals are due within five (5) business days after contract award and are subject to COR review and approval.