ATCH 1 - FuT RFP 20220724.pdf

ATCH.1 – RFQ FA3002-22-R-0033

1. GENERAL INFORMATION.

This is a Request for Quote (RFQ) for the disassembly, transport, delivery, and installation of a C-130 fuselage from Sheppard AFB, TX to JBSA-Lackland, TX. The Government intends to award a Firm-Fixed Price contract IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13. The contract delivery date will be NLT 31 calendar days from contract award.

2. ORGANIZATION OF PROPOSAL.

The proposal shall consist of a cover letter and three separate volumes/files. The cover letter shall include the following:

Small Business Status/Categories as appropriate

Company point of contact with email and phone number(s)

Cage Code & SAM Unique Entity Identifier (UEI)

A statement that your company understands the requirements specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and will meet the performance standards and requirements therein

A statement that your company does or does not take exception to any of the requirements of the PWS or terms/conditions of the resulting contract

The proposal volumes/files shall be organized as set forth in the Table A below. The titles, contents of the volumes, page limits and number of copies shall be as follows:

Table A - Proposal Organization

Volume Title Page Limit File Type

I Technical 10 pages PDF

II Experience ATCH 4 Completed 2-3 Examples of

Relevant Experience

PDF

III Price ATCH 3 Completed XLS

2.1. Volume I – Technical. The technical approach will be evaluated for evidence of the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements as defined in the PWS. All requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. Your 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 these requirements. If your proposal offers vague and ambiguous ideas or procedures, your proposal will not be found technically acceptable. Offerors shall address their technical solution for meeting and/or exceeding the Government’s minimum performance requirements. The Offeror’s proposal must convey to the Government that the Offeror is capable; possesses sufficient technical expertise and experience; possesses sufficient resources; and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion such that technical requirements will be achieved. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities, work processes, and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s technical information.

2.2. Volume II – Experience. Each Offeror shall submit an Experience Volume as part of the proposal. This volume shall contain relevant contract/efforts from 2019 – 2022 that were similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the requirements in the PWS. In addition to the Experience Volume, the Government may contact references other than those identified by the Offeror, and use the information received to evaluate the Offeror’s experience.

2.3. Volume III – Price. The Offeror shall complete Attachment 3 - Price Proposal Spreadsheet. The Unit Price must be rounded to whole dollars. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) and then totaling all CLINs. Where appropriate in the price volume, Offerors should include a price breakdown, identifying labor categories and wages, and OH, G&A, and profit rates.

3. BASIS FOR AWARD.

3.1. The Technical and Experience volumes will be evaluated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis.

Award will be made to the lowest priced proposal receiving “acceptable” ratings for both evaluation standards. Proposals with an “unacceptable” technical volume, and “neutral” or “unacceptable” experience will not be eligible for award.

3.2. After close of the solicitation, the Government will stack responsive proposals (those proposals which adhere to all terms and conditions of the RFP) from lowest to highest TEP. Beginning with the proposal with the lowest TEP, the Government will evaluate the Technical and Experience volumes. If the proposal’s technical and experience volumes are not both found to be acceptable, the Government will move to the next proposal in the stack. This process will continue until a proposal is found that is determined to be both technically acceptable and have acceptable experience. Once a proposal is determined to be such, the Government will cease the evaluation process, leaving any and all remaining proposals unevaluated.

3.3. Technical Acceptability. The Technical Evaluation Team (TET) will determine whether each Offeror’s technical volume is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table B below.

To be technically acceptable, the Offeror must provide their technical solution for meeting and/or exceeding the government’s minimum performance requirements. The Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate to the Government, in great detail, how the Offeror intends to perform all service requirements identified in the PWS. The volume should also include all major milestones and an expected timeline for performance.

3.4. Experience Assessment. The TET will determine whether each Offeror’s experience is acceptable, neutral, or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table C below. To have acceptable experience, the Offeror’s Experience volume shall identify work performed that is within three (3) years of receipt of this proposal, and is of similar scope and complexity (relevance) as the requirements of the PWS.

The Offeror’s experience must demonstrate to the Government, in detail, how the Offeror’s previous experience is/was relevant to this current requirement. The Offeror’s experience(s) must have been completed in their entirety without any major complications or delays not caused by the Government.

Table B - Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the RFP

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the RFP

Table C – Relevant Experience Acceptable/Neutral/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Based on the Offerors lack of or sparse history or performance record, no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned.

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Note: A Neutral rating means the experience will be treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. In the context of the requirement as outlined in this RFP, the Government will make award only to an Offeror with “acceptable” experience.

3.5. Interchanges. The Government intends to award without interchanges with offerors therefore Offerors are encouraged to present their best technical proposal and prices in their initial proposal submission. However, should interchanges become necessary, the Government reserves the right to conduct them with one, some, or all of the offerors if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer. If the Government awards without interchanges, Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals or to resolve minor clerical errors.