Atch 1. Instructions to Offerors and Basis of Award 30 June 2020.pdf

Simplified Acquisition Proposal Request (SAPR)

FA485520Q0012 – Automatic Doors Repair and Maintenance

Attachment 1 - Instructions to Offerors/Basis of Award

1. Instructions to Offerors:

A. This is a competitive selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13, set aside for 100% Small Business (SB).

Contracts awarded under FAR 13 are not subject to FAR 15.3 procedures. Accordingly, award of a contract under this SAPR, should an award be made, shall follow the procedures outlined in FAR 13, as supplemented.

B. The proposal submitted in response to this SAPR must be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the requirements as stated in the SAPR and attachments, and the

Performance Work Statement (PWS). All claimed capabilities to meet the requirements shall be realistic and are subject to verification by the Government. Non-conformance with these instructions may result in rejection of the proposal, an unfavorable proposal evaluation, or being deemed ineligible for award.

C. Offerors shall clearly identify any exception to the SAPR terms and conditions and shall provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions are unacceptable. Any exception determined unacceptable by the Government may result in the Offeror’s proposal being determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. This information shall be provided in the format and content of the table below within the Offerors proposal cover letter. If no exceptions are taken, include a statement stating so within the proposal.

SAPR Exceptions

SAPR

Document Page/

Paragraph

Requirement/

Portion Rationale

PWS, ITO,

etc.

Applicable

Page and

Paragraph

Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken

Describe why the requirement can/will not be met

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

Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities or experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal.

E. Discrepancies. If an Offeror believes the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the

Contracting Officer (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.

F. Period of Performance.

Base Period 01 Sep 2020 – 31 Aug 2021

Option Year 1 01 Sep 2021 – 31 Aug 2022

Option Year 2 01 Sep 2022 – 31 Aug 2023

Option Year 3 01 Sep 2023 – 31 Aug 2024

Option Year 4 01 Sep 2024 – 31 Aug 2025

The Contract Line Item (CLIN) structure for this contract is detailed on the Pricing

Worksheet, Attachment 2.

G. Proposal Submission. Each Offeror shall submit proposals electronically to the email box of Contract Specialist (CS), SrA Colby Rolfe at colby.rolfe@us.af.mil and

Contracting Officer (CO), Sarah Muraco sarah.muraco@us.af.mil. The proposals (via email) shall be submitted no later than the required submission due date. For the electronic file, the offeror shall indicate part number and title as described in the table in paragraph I, below, and use separate files to permit rapid location of information. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft

(MS) Office 2010 suite of applications. The Offeror shall submit proposals for consideration no later than 02:00pm (MST), 15 July 2020. Only one (1) proposal shall be submitted, per company, in response to this requirement. Proposals received after the date/time specified will not be evaluated.

H. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of the proposal, the offeror must follow the instructions contained herein. The proposal must be complete, self-sufficient, and respond directly to the requirements of this solicitation. The response shall consist of two

(2) separate parts; Part I – Technical Capability and Part II – Price Proposal.

I. Offerors submitting a proposal in response to this SAPR shall submit a technical part and price proposal. Text shall be single spaced, on an 8 ½ x 11 inch sheet with a minimum one-inch margins all around. Font shall be no less than Times New Roman 10

pt. or no more than Times New Roman 12 pt. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software.

Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems, and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 by 17 inches in size. Pages shall be numbered consecutively within each volume. All proposal information shall be submitted in either MS Word or PDF format except for the Pricing Worksheet

(Attachment 2). Pricing information may be submitted in MS Excel format. Each part shall be submitted as a separately- labeled electronic files.

Offerors must ensure that pricing information is only included in PART II. Do NOT include any pricing information in PART I. All unit and extended prices provided shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. Extended prices must be divisible by the number of units proposed with no fractional cents. Submit your proposal in accordance with the table below. All electronic submissions shall reference the complete SAPR number in the subject line.

PART

REFERENCE

TITLE

MAXIMUM

NUMBER OF

PAGES

I Evaluation Factor 1 Technical Capability

II Evaluation Factor 2 Price No page limit

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the Government’s evaluation of the proposal. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Interchange Notices (INs). The specified page limits for IN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the INs to the Offerors.

Please provide the following information with your proposal:

Company Name, DUNS Number, Cage Code, *Number of Employees, and *Total

Yearly Revenue.

*Information required determining size of business for the NAICS referenced above

(1) Part I: Evaluation Factor 1: Technical Capability

The Technical Proposal should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the factors defined in Section 3 (Evaluation Factors) below. Provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying the factor.

Address your technical solution for meeting or exceeding the government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical subfactor. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation.

It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

The Offeror must show capability and experience in providing all management, labor, tools, supplies, materials, equipment, and lubricants, necessary to perform automatic door inspection, preventive maintenance and repairs at in compliance with original equipment manufacturer specifications.

Offeror must submit at least one satisfactorily performed contract (limit: 3), that shows this capability, and include the information below:

o Contract # Contract Title o Place of Performance o Performance Work Statement or equivalent document for this service

Requirements POC: Name, phone number, and email

(2) Part II: Evaluation Factor 2: Price

The offeror shall submit pricing information to support the completeness and reasonableness of their proposed prices for all CLINs. The pricing information submitted should fully support the PWS requirements for each major functional element specified in the PWS. This Part shall include the Pricing Worksheet (Attachment 2).

J. Point of Contacts (POC): The POCs for this acquisition are: CS SrA Colby Rolfe, he can be reached at 575-784-6655 or by email at colby.rolfe@us.af.mil, and the CO Sarah

Muraco, 575- 784-6866, email at sarah.muraco@us.af.mil. Any questions regarding this SAPR must be submitted by email to the POCs above by 2:00 PM MST, 8 July

2020.

2. Basis of Award

A. This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection. Pursuant to

FAR 12.602, contract award will be made using Simplified Acquisition Procedures in accordance with FAR 13.500(a) and IAW with FAR 9.104-1. Offeror’s submissions will be evaluated based upon the following:

B. First, the Government will rank the proposals from lowest price to highest price, in order to establish an Initial Total Evaluated Price (I-TEP). The I-TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices for the 12-month base period, four 12-month option periods and the 6- month Option to Extend Services (FAR 52.217-8). The 6-month

Option to Extend Services will be calculated by dividing the proposed total of option year four by two. Next, the Government will evaluate the technical Part 1 (Factor 1- Technical

Capability) on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, starting with the proposal with the lowest I-TEP. If the proposal with the lowest I-TEP is determined technically acceptable, the Government will evaluate the Offeror's I- TEP for price completeness, reasonableness, and balance to arrive at a Total Evaluated Price (TEP). If the lowest priced proposal is technically acceptable and the TEP is complete, reasonable, and balanced this Offeror's proposal represents the best value to the Government and award will be made to that Offeror. If the lowest priced proposal is not technically acceptable, the Government will consider the correction potential and may enter into interchanges with that offeror. If after interchanges with that Offeror, their proposal is technically acceptable and remains the lowest priced (with the TEP complete, reasonable and balanced), the contract will be awarded to that Offeror. If the Government deems the proposal not easily correctable, or if at any time it becomes other than the lowest priced proposal, the next lowest priced proposal will be evaluated for technical acceptability, followed by an analysis of their I-TEP to verify reasonableness, completeness and balance to arrive at the TEP. Interchanges will take place as necessary or deemed appropriate by the Government. The evaluation process will continue until reaching a technically acceptable proposal with a TEP that is reasonable, complete and balanced, or until all proposals are evaluated.

C. The Government intends to make award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting interchanges. Therefore, each proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to hold interchanges if, during the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Interchanges are fluid interaction(s) between the CO and the

Offerors that may address any aspect of the proposal and may or may not be documented in real time. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct interchanges using

Interchange Notices (IN) with one, some, none, or all offerors. Offeror responses to INs will be considered in making the award selection decision. Interchanges may be conducted with one, some or all offerors as the Government is not required to conduct interchanges with any or all offerors responding to this SAPR.

3. Evaluation Factors:

A. Responses to this SAPR will be evaluated against the following factors:

Evaluation Factor 1: Technical Capability o Technical Factor 1 (contains subfactors): Technical Capability Demonstration o Technical Factor 2: American Association of Automatic Door Manufacturer

Certification o Technical Factor 3: Preventive Maintenance Inspection Checklist example

Evaluation Factor 2: Price

(1) EVALUATION FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

(i) Technical Capability Factor 1: Technical Capability Demonstration

The Offeror must show capability and experience in providing all management, labor, tools, supplies, materials, equipment, and lubricants, necessary to perform automatic door inspection, preventive maintenance and repairs at in compliance with original equipment manufacturer specifications.

Offeror must submit at least one satisfactorily performed contract (limit: 3), that shows this capability, and include the information below:

o Contract # Contract Title o Place of Performance o Performance Work Statement or equivalent document for this service

Requirements POC: Name, phone number, and email

(a) Technical Capability Factor 1: Subfactor A: This requirement is met when contract(s) submitted have been satisfactorily performed within the previous six (6) years and show Offeror served as primary contractor or subcontractor responsible for contract performance.

(b) Technical Capability Factor 1: Subfactor B: This requirement is met when contract(s) submitted show essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort to:

o Perform Bi-monthly inspections and maintenance on at least 40 units at various locations.

o Perform unscheduled services on an as-needed emergency basis and be onsite with 24 hours o Submit all claims for manufacturer warranties as needed for repairs or replacement.

(ii) Technical Capability Factor 2: AAADM Certification

This requirement is met when the Offeror provides documentation of American

Association of Automatic Door Manufacturer (AAADM) certification and at least two (2) years’ experience as a specialized automatic door installation, service and repair business

(iii) Technical Capability Factor 3: Preventive Maintenance Inspection

Checklist example

This requirement is met when the Offeror provides an example preventive maintenance inspection checklist that shows a clear understanding of PWS requirements.

B. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each factor a rating, as shown below, to identify an offeror’s ability to accomplish each factor. Offerors will be scored by the following adjectival ratings for the Technical Capability Factor:

Technical Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the SAPR.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the SAPR.

(2) EVALUATION FACTOR 2: PRICE

Price proposals should support the proposed technical approach and will be evaluated for

(1) TEP, (2) completeness, (3) reasonableness and (4) unbalanced pricing. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unbalanced will not be considered for award.

Award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror.

A. The I-TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices for the 12-month base period, four 12-month option periods and the 6-month Option to Extend

Services. The 6-month Option to Extend Services will be calculated by dividing the proposed total of option year four by two. The six-month extension of services is IAW

FAR 52.217-8, "Option to Extend Services" and will only be utilized if necessary. The six-month extension of services is not to be considered part of any option period and will be a separate option exercised if it is utilized. Offerors are not required to submit pricing for a six-month extension of services. The I-TEP will be evaluated for reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing to arrive at the TEP. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable or unbalanced will not be considered for award. Evaluation of options or optional CLINs shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options or optional CLINs.

B. Completeness. The proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements have been addressed. The Offeror’s proposed price and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical volume and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto. The review will determine the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the SAPR requirements.

C. Reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to theGovernment that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

The Government will determine prices fair and reasonable through the use of one or more of the price analysis techniques at FAR 13.106-3(a).

D. Unbalanced pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting a proposal that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government shall analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. A proposal that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting

Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4. Past Performance:

Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) will be used as part of the responsibility determination made IAW FAR 9.104-1. The Government reserves the right to obtain information relative to present and past performance on its own.