Section_L_-_Instructions_to_Offerors _Section_M_-_Evaluation_of_Offers.docx

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

A. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The response shall consist of two (2) separate parts, Part I - Price Proposal, and Part II – Technical Proposal.

B. The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional cost information will be requested. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit “other than certified cost or pricing data” to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and completeness of the price.

C. Specific Instructions:

1. PART I – PRICE PROPOSAL - Submit original and one (1) copy

(a) Complete blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20A, 20B, 20C of the RFP Section A, SF1442. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP Sections A through K. These sections constitute the model contract.

(b) Insert proposed quantity, unit of issue, and unit price in the bid schedule. – Note – this is not a complete list of all cost objectives to complete this work and is merely a guide to assist in price evaluation. Contractors should verify all information in the solicitation with field conditions.

(c) Provide a total price inclusive of all labor, supervision, material, tools, equipment, supplies, transportation and incidentals necessary to complete the requirement and the intent of having a working fountain upon completion.

(d) Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections I through K. Section K shall be returned in its entirety, or proof of completion at www.sam.gov is acceptable in lieu of completing Section K. For Sections C through I, the offeror shall submit only those pages that require a fill-in.

2. PART II – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL – Limited to no more than 15 pages (page limit does not include past performance information submitted in support of Subfactor 2). Submit original and one (1) unpriced copy without contractor logo or other identifying information

(a) The Technical Proposal shall be clear and concise. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but shall address how the offeror intends to meet the requirements. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

(b) The Technical Proposal shall be prepared with the evaluation criteria for award set forth in Section M of this solicitation.

Subfactor 1-Technical Approach: The offeror shall submit a technical narrative, which describes the approach of the offeror to complete the requirement in accordance with drawings and specifications; and all applicable laws, regulations, and policy.

Subfactor 2-Performance Confidence Assessment. The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. Recent performance in contracts within the last three (3) years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation. Performance Confidence assessment will be based on:

Subfactor 2 Criteria- Past Performance Information - Limited to no more than 3 pages per contract listed. Only references for relevant past efforts/contracts are desired. Submit original.

(a) Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Three Years: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrate customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for relevant past efforts/contracts (similar in scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires). In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc.

(b) Past Performance References: The government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror's performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFP. The government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources of information available to the Government to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

Provide a list of at least three (3), but no more than five (5), of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of this RFP.

The performance confidence assessment will take into account past performance 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 to the instant acquisition. Furnish the following information for each contract listed:

(i) Company/Division name

(ii) Product/Service

(iii) Contracting Agency/Customer

(iv) Contract Number

(v) Contract Dollar Value

(vi) Period of Performance

(vii) Verified, up-to-date name, address, FAX & telephone number of the contracting officer

(viii) Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

(ix) Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

(x) Explain in sufficient detail which aspects of each contract are deemed relevant to the proposed effort.

(xi) Indicate if the offeror was the prime contractor or a subcontractor and provide the name of the prime contractor if the offeror was a subcontractor. Indicate the percentage of the project actually performed by the offeror and the type of work that was performed. If the offeror performed as part of a teaming arrangement or joint venture, indicate the names of all team members and the work performed by each. If necessary, the offeror may include additional comments to clarify the relevancy of the project.

If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past/present performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contracts. To be considered as a teaming arrangement, both partners in the proposed arrangement shall have staff located on-site. In addition, a clear description of how the partnership arrangement will work; chain of responsibilities, line of authority and the personnel on-site who have authority to speak for and bind the partnership in matters relating to this offer.

(c) Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

Subfactor 2 Criteria- “Relevant” performance is defined in Table 1. Past Performance Relevancy Rating (Section M). The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance.

D. Documents submitted in response to this RFP must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:

1. Requirements of the RFP (Bid Sheet, Drawings, Specififications) and government standards, policies, and regulations pertaining to the requirement.

2. Evaluation Factors for Award in Section M of this RFP.

3. Any limitation on the number of proposal pages. Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth in this Section L will not be read or evaluated, and will be removed from the proposal.

4. Format for proposal Part I and II:

(a) The proposals will be 8 1/2” x 11” paper except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams which may not exceed 11” x 17”.

(b) A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information.

(c) Typing shall not be less than 12 pitch.

(d) Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are not desired or required. E. General Information

1. Information regarding submission of proposals: Hand carried or mailed proposals must be delivered to the following address:

NPS, NCR - Regional Contracting

ATTN: DANIEL JACKSON

Acquisition Management Division 1100 Ohio Drive SW Contracting Annex Washington DC 20242-0001

2. The sealed envelope or package used to submit your proposal must show the time and date specified for receipt, the solicitation number, and the name and address of the offeror.

3. Offerors are cautioned that National Capital Region may have increased security measures in place. SOME DELAY SHOULD BE EXPECTED WHEN HAND-CARRYING PROPOSALS. Offerors should allow sufficient time to obtain a visitor pass and arrive at the contracting annex prior to the time specified for receipt. Late proposals may be processed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c) (3).

Draft Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive lowest priced technically acceptable source selection in which competing offeror’s will be ranked by price from lowest to highest, and then the lowest priced offer will be technically evaluated on a pass/fail basis. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluated factors or subfactors. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Price Evaluation Factor. The government shall rank all offer(s) by price, including any Tiered Pricing Reduction Factors if applicable; from the lowest price to the highest price. Offers shall be ranked according to their Total Evaluated Price, including any Tiered Pricing Reduction Factors offered in accordance with the Pricing Schedule Evaluation Worksheet.

B. Technical Acceptability Factor. Next, the government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable; starting with the lowest priced offer. If the lowest priced offeror is found technically acceptable and is otherwise eligible for award, then award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror. If the lowest priced offer is not found technically acceptable then evaluation will proceed to the next lowest priced offer until award is made.

The Technical Rating Definitions are as follows:

Acceptable: Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation within the Technical Acceptability Factor.

Unacceptable: The proposal does not clearly meet minimum requirements of the solicitation within the Technical Acceptability Factor.

1. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. Any offeror receiving an “Unacceptable” rating on the technical evaluation will not advance to the technical evaluation process.

2. Any subfactor determined unacceptable will render the entire Technical Proposal as unacceptable. Upon final determination that a proposal is unacceptable, the Contracting Officer (CO) shall promptly notify the firm submitting the proposal that it will not be considered for award and shall indicate in general terms the basis for the determination.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following Subfactors:

Subfactor 1-Technical Approach: The offeror shall submit a technical narrative, which describes the approach of the offeror to complete the requirement in accordance with drawings and specifications; and all applicable laws, regulations, and policy.

Subfactor 2-Performance Confidence Assessment. The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. Recent performance in contracts within the last three (3) years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation. Performance Confidence assessment will be based on:

Subfactor 2 Criteria- Past Performance Information - Limited to no more than 3 pages per contract listed. Only references for relevant past efforts/contracts are desired. Submit original.

(a) Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Three Years: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrate customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for relevant past efforts/contracts (similar in scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires). In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc.

(b) Past Performance References: The government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror's performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFP. The government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources of information available to the Government to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

Provide a list of at least three (3), but no more than five (5), of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of this RFP.

The performance confidence assessment will take into account past performance 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 to the instant acquisition. Furnish the following information for each contract listed:

(i) Company/Division name

(ii) Product/Service

(iii) Contracting Agency/Customer

(iv) Contract Number

(v) Contract Dollar Value

(vi) Period of Performance

(vii) Verified, up-to-date name, address, FAX & telephone number of the contracting officer

(viii) Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

(ix) Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

(x) Explain in sufficient detail which aspects of each contract are deemed relevant to the proposed effort.

(xi) Indicate if the offeror was the prime contractor or a subcontractor and provide the name of the prime contractor if the offeror was a subcontractor. Indicate the percentage of the project actually performed by the offeror and the type of work that was performed. If the offeror performed as part of a teaming arrangement or joint venture, indicate the names of all team members and the work performed by each. If necessary, the offeror may include additional comments to clarify the relevancy of the project.

If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past/present performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contracts. To be considered as a teaming arrangement, both partners in the proposed arrangement shall have staff located on-site. In addition, a clear description of how the partnership arrangement will work; chain of responsibilities, line of authority and the personnel on-site who have authority to speak for and bind the partnership in matters relating to this offer.

(c) Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

Subfactor 2 Criteria- “Relevant” performance is defined in Table 1. Past Performance Relevancy Rating (See Below). The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in Table 2. Performance Confidence Assessments. Past Performance regarding predecessor companies or subcontractor that will perform major aspects of the requirement will not be rated as highly as the past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

Table 1. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Rating Definition

TABLE 2. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

E. In evaluating past performance information, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

F. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

G. The government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

H. Integrated Assessment: In order to be considered for award, the offeror’s technical proposal must be rated as “Acceptable”.