Armored Vehicles - RFQ15F06723Q0000116- 05.04.23 A2.pdf

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

FINANCE DIVISION | PROCUREMENT SECTION

Facilities Acquisition Unit (FAU)

Up-Armored Vehicles Page 1 of 9

RFQ#15F06723Q0000116

May 4, 2023

All Interested Parties:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is establishing an order for three (3) up-armored vehicles for the FBI Cellular Analysis Survey Team (CAST).

This is a Request for Proposal (RFQ) using FAR Part 6.1, “Full and Open Competition.”

All vendor submissions in response to this RFQ are considered quotes and not proposals or offers, even, if labeled as such. Vendors agree to and are bound to ALL instructions, procedures, and rules of this RFQ.

RFQ Submission Instructions and Evaluation Factors Quotes in response to the RFQ MUST be submitted electronically to the Contracting Officer listed below. Contractors who respond to this RFQ acknowledge and agree to all the instructions and procedures described herein.

All quotes must be received no later than 11:00 AM Eastern Time on Thursday, May 18, 2023, to Candice Kesselman, Contracting Officer, ckesselman@fbi.gov.

All questions regarding this requirement shall be submitted via email no later than 11:00AM Eastern, Tuesday, May 9, 2023, to Contracting Officer, Candice Kesselman at ckesselman@fbi.gov.

Attachments:

1. SF-1449 - 15F06723Q0000116

2. Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial

Services (Nov 2021)

3. Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items, November 2021 mailto:ckesselman@fbi.gov mailto:ckesselman@fbi.gov

Up-Armored Vehicles Page 2 of 9

Attachment 2 Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Products and Commercial

Services (Nov 2021)

1. Submission Proposals must be submitted by email by the submission date to the Point of Contacts listed in the Cover letter.

2. Proposal Validity Period This section supersedes 52.212-1 proposal validity period. All offerors’ proposal(s) shall be valid at least 60 days after the proposal due date. The offeror shall make a clear statement in the Cover Letter that the proposal is valid at least 60 days from the proposal due date.

3 Proposal Content

3.1. General Instructions

The proposal instructions in this section are designed to assist offerors in preparing a complete response that reflects a full understanding of the approach proposed to accomplish all contractual requirements.

3.2 Responsiveness and Completeness

The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation by the Government and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet the areas to be evaluated.

Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal. The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate that the offeror possesses the technical expertise, management experience, and successful record of past performance to perform all requirements of the SOW.

Offerors are reminded to properly mark their proposal documents, which contain proprietary or restricted information.

Offerors are advised that the Government may incorporate into the final contract enhancing features included in the offeror’s proposal deemed beneficial to the Government. No cost or pricing information should appear in any volume other than the Price Volume of the proposal.

The Government advises offerors that taking exception to or deviating from any term or condition of the RFQ may make an offer unacceptable and the offeror ineligible for award.

3.3 Proposal Acceptability

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 factors or subfactors to be eligible for award. By submission of its offer, the offeror consents and

Up-Armored Vehicles Page 3 of 9 agrees to all solicitation requirements and identified constraints. Non-conformance with the instructions provided may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation, or rejection of an offeror’s proposal prior to evaluation, rendering it ineligible for award. Non-conformance includes failure to submit all volumes described in this solicitation in electronic formats, outlined in the format and limitations as set forth in the RFQ.

4 PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION

4.1 Organization

The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization and Content Table L-1 below. The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table L-1.

The contents of each proposal volume are described in the subsequent sections below.

Table L-1: Proposal Organization and Content

Volume Title Page Limit Volume I – Technical Capability 20 Volume II - Experience 10 Volume III – Price / Cost No Limit

4.2 Page Limitations

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the government reserves the right to remove the excess pages and the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal. This decision in relation to page count, shall uniformly apply across all proposals.

Each page shall be counted except the following:

1. Volume Cover Pages

2. Table of Contents

3. List of Tables and Figures

4. Glossaries / Acronym List

5. Tabs / Dividers

6. Blank pages

4.3 Page Size and Count

Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches. Use 1-inch margins on the top and bottom and 1-inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume.

Special considerations will not be given for colors, pictures, or unnecessary graphics.

4.4 Text

The text size shall be no less than Microsoft Word Times New Roman 12-point font, single-spaced. Text includes free text as well as text in tables, focus boxes, and other representations of several sentences or paragraphs of information.

Up-Armored Vehicles Page 4 of 9

4.5 Volumes

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. Each response to each subfactor shall be self-contained.

Each proposal volume shall be unclassified and written in Standard English.

4.6 Glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms

Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used for the entire proposal, with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

4.7 Electronic Submission

Complete electronic copies shall be submitted in Microsoft Office 2010 or compatible format.

Offerors are permitted to submit documents such as signed letters in .pdf format. Pricing spreadsheets should be submitted using MS Excel 2010. If files contain links, the links must be intact and maintained through all revisions.

Electronic copies shall not be password protected.

All electronic copies shall be submitted via email. The email submission shall clearly state “RFQ#15F06723Q0000116 {Company Name}” in the subject line. The body of the email shall state the number of files and title of each file submitted.

5. VOLUME I: FACTOR 1 TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

The offeror shall provide information within this Volume to facilitate the Government’s consideration of Factor 1 “Technical Capability”. The offeror’s response and proposed approach to meeting the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW) will provide the Government with insight into the offeror’s ability to execute technical disciplines that are required for successful delivery of three (3) up-armored vehicles. This volume shall address the technical aspects of the requirement. The Government is most interested in substantive and meaningful discussion on the offerors understanding of the Statement of Work and its specific capabilities to build and deliver three (3) Up-Armored Vehicles. The Government is also interested in the Offerors assessment of the difficulties and risks it may encounter, and its approach to dealing with them while still successfully delivering the Up-Armored Vehicle within nine months after award.

The offeror shall clearly describe their approach and understanding to performing the SOW requirements. The offeror shall provide a written narrative demonstrating their approach.

6 VOLUME II: FACTOR 2 PAST PERFORMANCE

Experience information allows offerors to demonstrate their record of performance.

The offeror shall provide information within this Volume to facilitate the Government’s

Up-Armored Vehicles Page 5 of 9 consideration of Factor 2 “Past Performance”. The Government is most interested in examples of real work with actual results of the prime offeror in the delivery of similar vehicles to the United States Government. Demonstrated experience may also include similar vehicles for state or local governments. The Offeror shall provide at least three (3) examples of its experience performed within the last five (5) years. The examples shall provide photos and details of the similarity of this requirement. The Government is interested in the quality and similarity of the examples to the requirement. The Offeror shall include the name and contact information of a reference that can substantiate the example of real work and real results. The information shall be sufficiently detailed that the evaluator(s) can determine whether the example(s) demonstrate the Offerors experience. The Government will not contact the reference to obtain detail lacking from the Offerors response. Under this factor the Offeror shall also submit information/examples of difficulties or constraints the Offeror has encountered and how they overcame them and/or plan to mitigate future occurrences.

7 VOLUME III: FACTOR 3 COST AND PRICE

The offeror shall submit the RFQ Attachment 02- Pricing Sheet. The offeror shall include in the submitted price list their proposed minimum discount percentages they will apply.

The offeror shall include a description of the methodology of their proposed prices. All prices quoted shall be inclusive of all labor, materials, and equipment to successfully deliver the final product.

Failure to provide a complete Pricing Template shall be cause for rejection of the proposal. The Government will not permit any changes to be made to the Pricing Template. No supplemental worksheets shall be added to the Pricing Template. If price information is found in any other volume, the Offeror may be considered ineligible for award.

Up-Armored Vehicles Page 6 of 9

Attachment 3

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items, November 2021

Basis for Award The Government’s intent is to evaluate the submitted quotes against the criteria set forth below and then make award on Best Value basis considering price and other factors (tradeoffs). The Government anticipates selecting awardee based upon initial quotes received; therefore, vendors are advised to submit their best price and technical quotes in the initial submission.

FAR 52.212-2 (a) The Government will award a 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 proposal must comply in all material respects with the requirements of law, regulation, and conditions set forth in the Solicitation.

The Offeror must be determined responsible according to the standards in FAR Subpart 9.1.

In conducting evaluation of proposals, the Government reserves the right to use all information available at the time of evaluations. The Government may rely on information contained in its own records (such as government audit reports, Organizational Conflict of Interest reports), commercial sources (such as Dun and Bradstreet Reports), and information publicly available (such as information available on the Internet). Additionally, the Government may contact Offeror references or other individuals or organizations to develop past performance evaluation information. If information obtained through sources other than those supplied by the Offeror’s proposal substantially disagrees with the Offeror’s proposal, the Offeror will be given an opportunity to address the inconsistencies.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Volume 1: Technical Capability, Volume 2: Past Performance, Volume 3: Price and will be evaluated in descending order.

Technical and past performance, when combined are more important than price.

Past Performance will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis with risk identified. The Offeror will have to be given a pass or neutral rating to be eligible for award. If the Offeror does not have a history of performance within the past five years of similar size and scope as related to this solicitation, they will be given a neutral rating. This rating will be equivalent to a pass rating.

The following paragraphs address the specific evaluation criteria for each factor:

Up-Armored Vehicles Page 7 of 9

Volume 1 -Factor 1- Technical Capability:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s response and proposed approach to meeting the requirements of Statement of Work (SOW). The Government will evaluate the offerors understanding of the SOW and its specific capabilities to build and deliver three (3) Up-Armored Vehicles. The Government will evaluate the offerors approach to dealing with difficulties and risks it may encounter, while still successfully delivering the Up-Armored Vehicles within nine months after award.

Volume II- Factor 2 Past Performance:

The Vendor shall provide information within the Technical Volume to facilitate the Government’s consideration of Factor 2 “Past Performance”. The Government is most interested in examples of “real work” with actual results of the prime vendor in the delivery of similar vehicles to the U.S.

Government. Demonstrated experience may also include similar vehicles for state and local governments. The Vendor shall provide at least three (3) examples of their experience performed within the last five (5) years. The examples shall provide photos and details of the similarity of this requirement. The Government is interested in the name and contact information of a reference that can substantiate the example of real work and real results. The information shall be sufficiently detailed to where the evaluator(s) can determine whether the example(s) demonstrate the Vendors experience. The Government will not contract the reference to obtain detail lacking from the Vendors response. Under the factor the Vendor shall also submit information/examples of difficulties or constraints the Vendor has encountered or how they overcame these difficulties or constraints and/or plan to mitigate future occurrences.

Volume III Price:

The Government will evaluate each proposal using one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404. For the proposal to be considered complete, the Offeror must provide all data that is necessary as identified in Attachment 02 – Armored Vehicles- Pricing Sheet.

Since the Government anticipates adequate price competition, the Government expects to verify price reasonableness by comparing competitively proposed prices. Therefore, Offerors are not required to submit certified cost or pricing data. If, after receipt of proposals, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist, the Government may require certified cost or pricing data (see FAR 15.403-4).

Up-Armored Vehicles Page 8 of 9

TECHNICAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS

Color Rating Definition

Blue Exceptional

Exceeds the requirements in a manner beneficial to the Government and indicates high understanding of the requirements; strengths far outweigh the weaknesses; high probability of satisfying the requirement; no significant weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Good

Meets the requirements; indicates a good understanding of the requirements; there are strengths that outweigh the weaknesses;

good probability of satisfying the requirement; any significant weaknesses can be readily corrected. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal

Fails to meet the requirements or demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirements; or has a low probability of satisfying the requirement; there are more weaknesses that are not offset by strengths; or may have significant, but correctable, deficiencies. Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate to high.

Red Unacceptable

Fails to meet a minimum requirement established by the solicitation. This rating requires one or more unresolved deficiencies. There are no strengths present to offset any weaknesses or significant weaknesses. Proposal is un-awardable. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Up-Armored Vehicles Page 9 of 9

PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS

This Area will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis with risk identified. The following ratings with risk assessments will be used for the evaluation.

RATING DEFINITION

Pass-Confidence

(PC)

Based on the feedback from the Offeror and/or their current or former customers, some doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Normal offeror emphasis should preclude significant problems on the required effort. The Offeror’s past performance record showed a consistent history of acceptable performance. Any significant problems encountered were successfully mitigated.

Neutral

(N)

Based on the feedback from the Offeror their current or former customers, no Offeror performance record exists on efforts comparable as the same size and scope to the required effort. Based on all available information, normal offeror emphasis and routine government oversight should preclude any significant problems on the required effort.

Fail-Low Confidence

(FLC)

Based on the feedback from the Offeror and/or current or former customers, substantial doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Substantial government intervention may be required to ensure adequate Offeror performance. The Offeror’s past performance record showed an inconsistent history of performance that showed significant areas of marginal or unsatisfactory performance. Any significant problems encountered may have been mitigated but resulted in substantial adverse impacts to the effort’s cost, schedule, or planned performance.

Respectfully, X Candice Kesselman Contracting Officer