DRAFT Attach 5 Solicitation Section L and M.pdf

FAR provision 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial, applies to this acquisition. As prescribed in FAR 12.301(b)(1), the following addendum is provided for this solicitation and hereby amends any language therein.

1. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of the proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein.

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including:

1. Terms and conditions

2. Representations and certifications

3. Technical requirements in addition to those identified as evaluation factor or sub-factors

4. Current UK business registrations, licenses, and/or insurance required to legally operate and employ personnel within the UK or show rationale for non-applicability.

Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award.

3. Notice to Offeror(s)/Supplier(s): Funds are not presently available for this effort. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available. The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an offeror for any costs.

4. The Government’s terms, conditions, and respective clauses contained within this solicitation are prescribed in accordance with (IAW) United States Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and supplements. Offerors specific terms and conditions that may be proposed for subsequent inclusion into the contract, if awarded, will not be accepted or considered by the Government in its evaluation of proposals. Offerors that are not able to comply with the aforementioned conditions, will be determined as noncompliant with the solicitation requirements, and therefore may be removed from consideration for award.

Offeror(s) shall complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in provisions in Solicitation Attachment 5, provision FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications–Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021), sign the last page, and submit with the proposal. For other provisions and clauses in the solicitation, the offeror is required to submit the pages that require an offeror fill-in.

5. Proposal Markings. Proposals shall be marked in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information. Offerors shall not include proprietary markings on attachments and documents that will become a part of the contract (i.e. Volume IV documents).

6. Teaming Arrangements. Offerors submitting a proposal as the prime Offeror in response to this solicitation are not permitted to submit a separate proposal under which they would be a Subcontractor, or team member to another prime. Subcontractors are permitted to support multiple primes.

7. The proposal shall consist of three (3) separate volumes:

Volume I - Technical Capability o Past Experience o Mission Essential Plan

Volume II - Past Performance Volume III - Price

8. Points of Contact/Communications/Questions/Clarifications. The Contracting Officer (CO) and Contract Specialist (CS) are the sole points of contact for this acquisition. All questions/clarifications regarding this solicitation must be submitted in writing. Any questions and subsequent answers will be posted to the System for

Addendum 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – (Use new name and date: Instructions to Offerors Commercial Product and Commercial Services (Nov 2021)

Award Management (sam.gov) website. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to continuously monitor the site for updates. To mitigate risks associated with the cancellation of this solicitation due to untimely submission of questions, Offerors are encouraged to submit all questions and requests for clarifications no later than close of business 25 calendar days after the solicitation posting date. The decision whether to respond to questions and requests for clarification received after 25 calendar days from the solicitation posting date shall be at the sole discretion of the CO. If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the CO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the Offeror is asking the CO to consider as related to the omission or error. Offerors shall submit questions/requests for clarifications to the below points of contact:

Contract Specialist: bobbie.dobberstein.1@us.af.mil and Contracting Officer: tawana.jackson.1@us.af.mil

9. Proposal Submission Instructions.

A. Electronic copies of all proposal information for each volume shall be submitted using Microsoft Office 2010 or later, and/or Portable Document Format (PDF) using Adobe Acrobat 9.0 or later. Offerors shall not submit any documents in PDF that cannot be electronically searched. Offerors may use JPEG images for charts or screen shots. The title of the electronic documents shall include the RFP number, proposal volume number, offeror’s name, and offeror’s SAM Unique Entity ID (if registered in SAM).(i.e., Acme Co., FA558722R0001, Volume 1: Price, SAM UEI, Volume 3: Price). Each volume shall be contained in its own single searchable file, with copy/paste capability, and stored in a folder that corresponds to the proposal volume it represents. JPEG images and company proprietary information, such as plans and manuals are excluded from the searchable, with copy/paste capability. Offerors shall insert the file name in the header of each document.

B. Offerors are responsible for submitting proposals so as to reach the Government office designated in this solicitation prior to the time specified in Block 8 of SF 1449. The Government will only accept electronic submissions either by e-mail or internet file share. Us.af.mil addresses have a maximum allowable file size limit of 20 MBs. It is heavily encourage that if the Offeror’s proposal is at or near this size limit then the internet file share platform PIEE Solicitation Module (https://piee.eb.mil/) be utilized over email. Should Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) servers reject emails close to or exceeding the maximum allowable file size limit, the Offerors proposal may not be accepted. Paper copies of proposals will not be evaluated, will be rejected, and will not be considered for award. Proposals may be submitted electronically by e-mail to the points of contact listed in Section L, paragraph 8. It is solely the responsibility of the Offeror to confirm the emailed proposals and all applicable attachments were received by the Government prior to the closing of the

RFP.

C. All offers shall be complete, clearly presented, and contain sufficient detail for effective evaluation as detailed in Addendum 52.212-2 of this solicitation. Offers shall be neat, indexed and assembled in an orderly manner.

D. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Product and Commercial Services (Nov 2021) paragraph (f) ―Late submission, modifications, revisions, and withdrawals of offers.

10. Format for proposal Volumes I, II and III shall be as follows:

Paper Size 8 1/2” x 11” paper, or European equivalent, except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams, which may not exceed 11” x 17”, or European equivalent.

Font Not be less than 12 pitch.

A. Copies and Page Limits. Page limitations exclude cover page(s). Evaluators will only read up to the maximum number of pages specified. If the page limit is exceeded, the excess pages will be removed from the proposal and will not be evaluated. When Evaluation Notices (ENs) are necessary, the Government will issue them by electronic means to prospective offerors. Page limitations may be placed on responses to ENs and such limitations will be provided at the time the EN is issued.

B. Cross-Referencing. Offerors shall not cross reference between Volumes I, II, and III. Each Volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to other Volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation, which is not found in its designated Volume, will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

C. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award.

11. Specific Instructions.

VOLUME I – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY PROPOSAL.

A. Volume I, Technical shall include Subfactor 1, Past Experience and Subfactor 2, Mission Essential Plan.

Past Experience and Mission Essential Plan are limited to 15 single-sides page each. Page limitation excludes title page(s).

B. Subfactor 1, Past Experience. Using Solicitation Attachment 4, Past Performance Questionnaire, provide evidence of two (2) contracts of same/similar performance and/or scope of work as the PWS. Contract performance shall be within three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation and must have completed at least six (6) months of performance on the contract/task order. Evidence may include any contractual document that describes the elements listed below. Offerors must demonstrate that the evidence is contractually binding (e.g., submit the signed cover page of the contract). Draft documents will not be considered evidence.

Past experience shall include:

i) Management of at least two (2) separate locations simultaneously;

ii) Capability to service at least six (6) aircraft simultaneously;

iii) Demonstrate a successfully executed phase-in period of 60 days or less; and

iv) Demonstrate successful implementation of an effective training program which addresses refresher training, specialty purpose vehicle operations, baggage handling operations, and fleet service operations.

In addition, offerors shall include the following information for each of the contract submitted:

Company/Division/Agency/Customer name Description of service provided Contract number Contract value including options Period of Experience (i.e., From DD MMM YYYY to DD MMM YYYY) Verified, up-to-date name, address, email of company representative Contracting office contact information

C. Subfactor 2, Mission Essential Plan. Illustrate in detail the plan for continuation of services IAW PWS paragraphs 1.3.1., 1.3.2., 1.3.3., 1.3.4., 1.3.6., 1.3.7., 1.3.8., and 1.3.9., that shall be performed under all circumstances to achieve DoD component missions or responsibilities. In accordance with DFARS 252.237- 7024 Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services (Oct 2010), the plan shall include as a minimum:

i) Identify provisions made for the acquisition of essential personnel and resources, if necessary, for continuity of operations for up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed;

ii) Challenges associated with maintaining essential contractor services during an extended event, such as a pandemic that occurs in repeated waves;

iii) The times lapse associated with the initiation of the acquisition of essential personnel and resources and their actual availability on site;

iv) The components, processes, and requirements for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel who are capable of relocating to alternate facilities or performing work from home;

v) Any established alert and notification procedures for mobilizing identified “essential contractor service” personnel; and

vi) The approach for communicating expectations to contractor employees regarding their roles and responsibilities during a crisis.

VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE. Contractor shall only provide recent and relevant past performance for past performance evaluation. Volume II, Past Performance is limited to 30 single-sides page each. Page limitation excludes title page(s).

A. The Offeror shall submit the following as part of the Past Performance Volume:

Summary of Previous Recent/Relevant Contract Completed Past Performance Questionnaires Teaming/Partnership Agreements (if any)

B. Summary of Previous Recent/Relevant Contracts. Describe your role (prime contractor, subcontractor, joint venture partner, etc.) for each past performance reference cited. Provide a summary of up to five (5) recent/relevant past performance citations. Each offer is limited to five citations regardless of offeror’s status as an individual entity or a team/partnership. The summaries should explain what aspects of each contract are deemed recent and relevant as related to the requirements of this solicitation and in accordance with Section M.

Failure to provide required relevancy description may impact the confidence rating, (i.e. aspects of previous projects should match work elements identified in the solicitation/specification). The summaries shall include the following: Offerors must submit recent and relevant contact information for a maximum of five (5) customers for whom Fleet Service and Baggage Handling Services have been provided. Two (2) of the past performance submissions shall be for the contracts used on the past experience technical subfactor.

Company/Division name/Contracting Agency/Customer Name Description of service provided (to include locations) Contract number (if applicable) Contract value including options Period of experience (i.e., From DD MMM YYYY to DD MMM YYYY) Verified, up-to-date name, address, email of company representative Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions

NOTE: If an Offeror has no past performance history of relevance, the Offeror must state affirmatively it possesses no past performance history of relevance.

C. The Offeror will be responsible for contacting the past performance points of contact referenced by offerors in their proposal. The references will be requested to complete the Past Performance Questionnaire (Solicitation Attachment 1) which must be returned directly from the past performance point of contact to the Contracting Officer for purposed of evaluation. Multiple customer contacts can be provided by offerors for the same customer.

NOTE: THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEND OUT THE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

(SOLICITATION ATTACHMENT 4) RESTS SOLEY WITH THE OFFEROR.

VOLUME III – PRICE

A. Complete the Pricing Schedule attached to this RFP (Solicitation Attachment 3). Offeror shall only complete the unit prices for the following: Ordering Period 1, Ordering Period 2, Ordering Period 3, Ordering Period 4, Ordering Period 5, Option Year 1, Option Year 2, Option Year 3, and Option Year 4 and 6 month extension.

The total for each year will automatically populate the other tabs and calculate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the solicitation, with attachments. The solicitation constitutes the model contract.

B. Firm Fixed Priced Proposals: The resultant contract will be Firm Fixed Priced. Accordingly, proposed pricing by offerors shall be firm-fixed, and not subject to revision and/or negotiation if selected for contract award. Additionally, multiple awards will not be considered; proposals shall include pricing for all items in the

Price Schedule. Ensure that unit prices are no more than two (2) decimal places of a British Pound Sterling (£) or United States Dollar ($).

INFORMATIONAL PRICING NOTE. TUPE – Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.

Definition. The United Kingdom’s Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) is the main piece of legislation governing the transfer of an undertaking, or part of one, to another. The regulations are designed to protect the rights of employees in a transfer situation.

During the solicitation phase and award of the resultant contract the Government does not have access to specific TUPE information nor becomes involved with related TUPE processes and associated liabilities (to include indemnification) that may transpire during pre-award or post-award phases between transferor and transferee. While the Government understands the relevance of TUPE-information in proposing fixed prices, the responsibility to provide TUPE-information rests solely with the transferor; governed by Regulation 11 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) Regulations 2006 (TUPE). As the transferor need only provide TUPE information to the transferee prior to the transfer, the Government will only make available the listing of the current, incumbent contractor(s) with associated points of contact if requested. The Government is not responsible for determination of TUPE applicability; the responsibility lies solely with the transferor.

As this is a firm-fixed price contract, it is incumbent upon the offeror to calculate any anticipated TUPE pricing at time of proposal submittal. TUPE costs cannot be submitted as a conditional proposal, if submitted as such the offerors proposal will be considered unacceptable and the offeror may be excluded from competition.

12. Further changes to the original FAR clause 52.212-1 Instruction to Offeror – Commercial Product and Commercial Services (Nov 2021).

A. Paragraph 52.212-1(c), Period for Acceptance of Offers is tailored as follows: The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 210 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.

B. Paragraphs 52.212-1(d) Product Samples, 52.212-1(e) Multiple Offers, 52.212-1(h) Multiple Award and 52.212-1(i) Debriefing do not apply to this acquisition.

13. Debriefings. The CO will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the source selection; whereupon, the Offeror may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505.

Offerors desiring a debriefing shall make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR

15.505 or 15.506, as applicable. Offerors are entitled to no more than one debriefing.

(End of Addendum)

(a) The Government intends to award an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The minimum order will made IAW FAR 52.216-19. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1. Technical

i. Subfactor 1, Past Experience

ii. Subfactor 2, Mission Essential Plan

2. Past Performance

3. Price

Addendum 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021)

Discussions. The Governments intends to issue the award without discussions. The Government will not enter into discussions on Past Experience. If the Government has questions pertaining to Past Performance (e.g. adverse findings), the Government may request clarifications in accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(2).

BASIS FOR AWARD. This is a tradeoff source selection. The Government intends to award to the responsible offeror, IAW FAR Part 9.1, whose offer conforming to the solicitation (to include all stated terms, conditions, representation, certifications, and all other information required by the addendum to FAR 52.212-1, “Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items” of this solicitation) will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable.

Best Value Determination. The Government will award this contract to the Offeror whose proposal is determined to offer the overall best value to the Government. In order to be considered the overall best value, the Government must determine the following:

a) Offeror is responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104-1; and

b) The Offeror’s proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by 52.212-1 and its addendum of this solicitation).

In order to be considered awardable, there must be an acceptable rating in every non-price factor/sub factor. The three (3) evaluation factors used to evaluate proposals are: Technical, Past Performance, and Price.

Order of Importance. Technical Subfactor 1, Past Experience, is significantly more import than Subfactor 2, Mission Essential Plan. Technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Only one award will be made as a result of this solicitation.

EVALUATION PROCESS.

Step 1. The Government will evaluate all Offerors’ Technical, starting with Past Experience and then Mission Essential Plan on a pass/fail basis, assigning an overall rating of Acceptable, or Unacceptable. If any Offorer has an unacceptable Past Experience or Mission Essential Plan, the Offeror will not move on to the next step and the Government will not evaluate that Offerors’ past performance or price.

Step 2. Next, the Government will evaluate past performance of all Offerors with an acceptable Technical rating.

The past performance evaluation will result in an overall performance confidence assessment as defined below. This performance confidence assessment represents the Government evaluation team’s judgment of the probability of an Offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the Offeror’s demonstrated past and present performance. The performance confidence assessments are defined as follows in Table 2.

For each contract, the Government will evaluate the information contained in the past performance contract reference for recency and relevancy. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government will assign an acceptable or unacceptable rating for each recent past performance contract reference IAW Table 1.

Recency is defined as: Within three (3) years from the issuance of the solicitation and the period of performance for past performance submitted must be for a minimum of six (6) months.

Relevancy is defined as: Performed full range of Fleet service and Baggage Handling services as described in the PWS; managed at least two (2) geographically separate locations simultaneously; and performed services to no less than six (6) aircraft simultaneously.

Table 1. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Method

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Unacceptable Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Quality of Performance. All recent past performance that is determined to be acceptable will be reviewed to determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and the usefulness of the performance. This information will be used by the evaluation team in determining the overall performance confidence assessment rating.

Sources of Past Performance. In addition to the Past Performance Questionnaires (Solicitation Attachment 4) completed by the points of contact listed in the proposal, the Government will also utilize data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources during past performance evaluation. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of the Contractors who are part of a partnership/joint venture or teaming agreement identified in the Offerors proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

Assigning Performance Confidence Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, the offeror will receive a single performance confidence assessment rating IAW with Table 2.

The resulting performance confidence assessment rating represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the past contract performance factor (FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral”. A strong record of relevant and very relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Method Adjectival 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 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.

Offerors should propose the best available pricing to the Government for each CLIN in arriving at the most competitive price. Price information submitted in each offerors price proposal, as required by the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Items, will be evaluated to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.305. The Government may use any of the price analysis techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine reasonableness. Prices will be evaluated for balance IAW 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offerors proposal.

Step 3. The Government will evaluate pricing of all Offerors with substantial confidence. If Offerors with substantial confidence have reasonable, balanced pricing, the Government will select the Offeror with the lowest price. If all Offerors with substantial confidence don’t have reasonable, balanced pricing, then the Government will evaluate the lowest priced offeror with satisfactory confidence.

Step 4. The lowest priced offeror who has been deemed responsive, received an acceptable rating on Technical, and received a Substantial Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating will then be evaluated for reasonableness, completeness, and balance.

Reasonable: Price analysis will be used to evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed price, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, and other agency supplements. An assessment that the proposal is not reasonable will result in the offer being unacceptable for award. An Offeror’s proposal shall represent the Offeror’s best efforts to respond to the RFP. Price reasonableness will include evaluating the Offeror’s TEP.

Balanced: In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), the Government will evaluate Solicitation Attachment 3 – Quote Sheet to determine if any proposed coefficient of one or more of the line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by application of price analysis techniques. The proposal may be rejected if it is determined to be unbalanced and as a result poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Offerors are encouraged to include explanatory notes regarding any fluctuations in coefficients that may otherwise be viewed as unbalanced.

The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition.

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 information to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the offeror. Failure to propose for any line item in the Quote Sheet (Solicitation Attachment 3) may cause the offeror’s proposal to be rejected as incomplete and nonresponsive.

Any evaluated TEP resulting in the determination of being found unreasonable IAW FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3, unbalanced IAW FAR 15.404-1 or incomplete may not be considered for award.

If the lowest priced offer that has been determined reasonable, complete and balanced is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment rating and acceptable technical capability, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers. (What about technical capability)

If the lowest priced offeror’s proposal that has been determined to be reasonable, complete and balanced is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment rating, the next lowest priced offeror will then be evaluated utilizing the methodology above, and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” confidence assessment rating and acceptable technical capability or until all offerors are evaluated. At that point, whichever occurs first, the Source Selection Authority will then make an integrated assessment best value award decision. The SSA performs this assessment by comparing the performance confidence and the price of all evaluated proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value to the Government.

(End of provision)