6913G620Q300041 FRP Mechanical Tests Instructions to Offerors.docx

Request for Quotation (RFQ) No. 6913G620Q300041

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICE TO OFFERORS I. PROPOSAL FORMAT

The Offeror’s written proposal must include the following:

PRICE QUOTATION

The Offeror shall use the Contractor Pricing Sheet (attached) Test Pricing Sheet, which serves the basis for each Test to be performed under CLINs: 0200, and 0300, as well as optional Sub-CLINs: 0201 through 0213, and 0301. The test pricing sheet will define for each test: the Unit Cost per Test (with the repeat test numbers included, see Statement of Work, Table 2), Required Cost (based on Required No. Tests), Maximum Optional Cost (based on Maximum Optional No. Tests), Total Maximum Cost, and Turnaround Time. The offeror shall provide the above pricing information for all tests that the offeror is capable, equipped and experienced with conducting. A required number of tests being zero shall not prevent the offeror from providing the pricing information.

The Offeror shall also complete Contractor Pricing Sheet (attached) CLIN Pricing Sheet, which provides the pricing for all required CLINs and pricing for optional Sub-CLINs.

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

The Offeror’s technical proposal shall include the following:

1) A written description of the Offeror’s technical approach for successfully achieving the requirements identified in the Statement of Work (maximum 5 pages);

2) Resume(s) for the proposed subject matter expert(s) (maximum 5 pages);

3) Documentation demonstrating the Offeror’s prior experience in the following areas (maximum 10 pages):

· Professionally accredited testing capabilities of the ASTM standard tests listed in the Statement of Work, Table 2;

· In-house facility and equipment to conduct the testing work;

· Prior experiences with conducting the ASTM standard tests listed in the Statement of Work, Table 2;

· Ability and experience with advanced edge-cutting techniques in test coupon preparation, to avoid compromised test results due to edge damage;

· Ability to statistically analyze the test data and provide reports that meet the requirements spelled out in the Statement of Work.

4) Identification of proposed substitutions for any test in the test matrix in the Statement of Work, Table 2, and descriptions of rationale for the proposed substitutions;

5) Project schedule/timetable including turnaround time for each test;

6) A copy of the QA/QC plan for test procedure, test outcome, verification of test results, etc.;

7) Example data reports for tests including but not limited to: ASTM D3039/D3039M, D5379/D5379M, D790, D7136/D7136M, and D3479/D3479M.

FAR 52.212-3, OFFEROR REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

The Offeror must include a completed copy of the provision at FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Items (attached). An Offeror shall complete only paragraph (b) of this provision if the Offeror has completed the annual representations and certifications electronically using the System for Award Management (SAM) accessible via https://www.sam.gov/SAM/ . If the Offeror has not completed the annual representations and certifications electronically in SAM, the Offeror shall complete only paragraphs (c) through (o) of this provision. The Offeror is reminded that if it completes its annual representations and certifications electronically in SAM it must update its representations and certifications as necessary, but at least annually, to ensure they are kept current, accurate, and complete. All Contractors must be registered in SAM in order to receive an award from a DOT Agency.

FAR 52.204-24 REPRESENTATION REGARDING CERTAIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND VIDEA SURVEILANCE SERVICES OR EQUIPMENT Offeror must complete this provision contained in the Terms and Conditions and submit with their proposal/quote.

**Any proposal that does not include the components specified herein will be considered non- responsive**

II. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD Basis for Award Single or multiple awards will be made to the responsive and responsible Offerors whose offers, conforming to the solicitation, are determined to offer the best values to the Government in terms of: 1) technical acceptability; 2) price (including unit prices per test method). It is the Government’s intent to award firm fixed price purchase orders based upon initial offers without entering into discussions or negotiations (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price standpoint, reflecting ANY AVAILABLE DISCOUNTS. While it is the Government's intent to make awards based upon initial offers, the Government may, nevertheless, determine during the evaluation period that it is necessary to conduct discussions.

Order of Importance

The technical evaluation criteria that are addressed in the Technical Proposal are considered more important than price in the selection of the contractor for award. When the Technical Proposals are evaluated as essentially equal, the quoted price may become the determining factor in making awards.

Evaluation Criteria

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated in terms of the following criteria:

1) Technical Acceptability

a) Technical Approach

b) Resume

c) Prior experience

d) Schedule

2) Price

Technical Acceptability

Technical acceptability of the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based on the following:

Technical Approach - The Offeror’s technical capability to satisfy the requirements of the SOW as demonstrated by its written technical approach;

Resume – The experience and expertise of the Offeror’s proposed staff to meet the requirements of the SOW as demonstrated by the proposed subject matter expert’s resume.

Prior Experience - The Offeror’s relevant work experience in the following areas as demonstrated by its prior experience:

· Professionally accredited to conduct the ASTM standard tests listed in the Statement of Work, Table 2;

· In-house facility and equipment to conduct the testing work;

· Ability and experience with advanced edge-cutting techniques in test coupon preparation, to avoid compromised test results due to edge damage;

· Ability to statistically analyze the test data and provide reports that meet Volpe requirements spelled out in the Statement of Work.

Schedule - The Offeror’s turnaround time for each test will be evaluated.

Price

The Offeror’s quoted price will be evaluated based on unit prices per test and total price proposed for required CLINs /Sub CLINs and optional Sub CLINs.

Offeror’s will be evaluated based on strengths, weaknesses, and probability of deficiency to be corrected, for each of the technical evaluation criteria. The corresponding narrative definition for the ratings of Exceptional, Acceptable, Marginal and Unacceptable are provided below.

Acceptable Meets evaluation standards; has good probability of satisfying the requirement; and any weakness can be readily corrected.

Marginal Fails to meet evaluation standards; or has low probability of satisfying the requirement; or has significant deficiencies but correctable.

Unacceptable Fails to meet a minimum requirement; and deficiency requires a major revision to the proposal to make it correct.

4 | Page