Atch 5--ITO and BOA 3 Aug 2020.pdf

Request for Proposal

RFP # FA5215-20-R-0031

Instructions to Offerors/Basis of Award (ITO/BOA)

1. Proposal Submission.

A. This is a competitive source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 procedures.

B. The proposal submitted in response to this RFP must be in compliance with the Statement of Work (SOW) dated 10 Jul 2020. Vendors may assume an award date of 9 Sep 2020. 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 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 Offeror’s proposal cover letter. If no exceptions are taken, include a statement stating so within the proposal cover letter.

RFP Exceptions

RFP Document Page/ Paragraph Requirement/ Portion

Rationale

SOW, ITO,

Evaluation Factor, 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.

G. Delivery Dates. Delivery Dates are spelled out in the cover letter of this solicitation on a per- CLIN basis.

H. Proposal Submission. Each Offeror shall submit proposals electronically via email to Capt John- Anthony Ford at johnanthony.ford.1@us.af.mil and to MSgt Clayton Bodkin at clayton.bodkin@us.af.mil. The Contractor shall submit proposals for consideration no later than 1:00 PM AKST, 2 Sep 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.

I. Offerors submitting a proposal in response to this RFP shall submit Contract Documentation (Volume I), Schedule (Volume II) and Price Proposal (Volume III). All proposal information shall be submitted in either MS Word, MS Excel, or PDF format. Each volume shall be submitted as a separately-labeled electronic file. Offerors must ensure that pricing information is only included in Volume II. Do NOT include any pricing information in Volume I. Submit your proposal electronically in accordance with the table below. All electronic submissions shall reference the complete RFP number in the subject line.

VOLUME REFERENCE TITLE

MAXIMUM

NUMBER OF

PAGES

I Contract Documentation Cover Letter No page limit II Factor 1: Technical N/A

Sub-Factor 1.1 First Article Testing & Compliance No page limit

Sub-Factor 1.2 Schedule No page limit III Factor 2 Price No page limit

(1) Contract Documentation. Cover Letter shall include offerors’ contact number, small business status/categories, company primary and alternate points of contact with email/phone and who is authorized to contractually obligate the company, CAGE Code, DUNS number, a statement that the company understands the requirements specified and will meet the performance standards and requirements therein, a statement that the company does or does not take exception to any of the requirements of this solicitation, and specific information if proposing a teaming arrangement.

(2) Factor 1 – Technical. The Technical Proposal should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the Technical subfactors. Provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying the subfactors. Address your technical solution for meeting or exceeding the government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of each mailto:johnanthony.ford.1@us.af.mil mailto:clayton.bodkin@us.af.mil 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.

i. First Article Testing (FAT) & Compliance: Prior to the close of this solicitation, the contractor shall:

a. provide evidence of successful FAT as well as evidence of production for the USAF within the last 60 months -- OR

b. (if a FAT is already undergoing with the Government), provide evidence of current testing from the testing agency. If granted the award, a certificate of FAT approval shall be required after contract award and before shipment of final product. -- OR

c. Provide an appropriate waiver signed by the ESA (If this route is selected, please submit documentation of any previous FAT approval if later than 60 months) – OR

d. Include in their proposal a plan to accomplish First Article Testing (FAT) as part of this requirement within the delivery schedule.

1. If the contractor demonstrates a plan to accomplish FAT as a result of award of this solicitation, the acceptable delivery timeline of CLIN 0001 shall be extended by 60 days (from 120 days ARO to 180 days

ARO)

ii. Schedule: The Contractor shall include a proposed schedule for completing the effort within the requested POP. The schedule shall illustrate the plan to meet the delivery dates for all major activities in the form of a Gantt Chart as a deliverable. The schedule may be submitted in MS project format, but must also be accompanied by a portable document format (pdf) or MS Excel version of the printed schedule.

(3) 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 SOW requirements for each major functional element specified in the SOW. The contractor shall submit a complete Schedule B (Attachment 4).

2. Basis of Award:

A. Award will be made in accordance with the procedures specified in the RFP and on the basis of the lowest priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for technical factors. Award may be made to the contractor who is deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the RFP’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the RFP instructions) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent a technically acceptable proposal with a fair and reasonable price.

Award will be made to the lowest-priced offeror whom is determined to be technically acceptable, otherwise known as a “Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable” (LPTA) basis.

B. Selection shall be made on a LPTA basis.

Gate 1) First, the Government will evaluate price for Factor 2 proposed IAW “Table C”

Gate 2) Next the Government will assess the lowest priced proposal for Technical Subfactor 1.1: First Article Testing (FAT) & Compliance on an acceptable or unacceptable basis in accordance with (IAW) “Table A” as well as evaluate the schedules for Technical Subfactor

1.2 on an acceptable or unacceptable basis IAW “Table B”.

C. The Government intends to make award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting discussions. Therefore, each offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if, during the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. The Government reserves the right to conduct exchanges using Evaluation Notices (EN). Offeror responses to ENs will be considered in making the award selection decision.

3. Evaluation Factors

A. Responses to this RFP will be evaluated against the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Sub-factor 1.1: First Article Testing & Compliance Sub-factor 1.2: Schedule

Factor 2: Price

FACTOR 1: Technical

Sub-factor 1.1: First Article Testing & Compliance

This criteria is met when the Contractor provides:

a. Verifiable evidence is provided of successful FAT as well as evidence of production for the USAF within the last 60 months -- OR

b. (If a FAT is already undergoing with the Government), verifiable evidence of current testing is provided from the testing agency. If granted the award, a certificate of FAT approval shall be required after contract award and before shipment of final product. -- OR

c. An appropriate waiver signed by the ESA is provided along with documentation of a previous FAT approval that was later than 60 months.

The contact information for the cognizant ESA is:

Christopher S. Peisher Aircraft Arresting Systems Engineer

WRLCMC/WNZEC

235 Byron St., Suite 19A Robins AFB GA 31098-1813 christopher.peisher@us.af.mil 478-222-1371

– OR

d. A proposal including a plan to accomplish First Article Testing (FAT) as part of this requirement within the delivery schedule is provided.

The following ratings will be utilized:

TABLE A – Sub-factor 1.1: First Article Testing & Compliance

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the RFP.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the RFP.

Sub-factor 1.2: Schedule

This criteria is met when the Contractor proposes a Gantt chart schedule, within the period of performance, which is achievable, measurable, and demonstrates progress towards achieving the proposed objectives and meeting delivery dates, as stated in the SOW. Proposed schedule includes all major activities, regulatory processes, and close-out activities.

TABLE B – Sub-factor 1.2: Schedule

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the RFP.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the RFP.

FACTOR 2: Price.

(1) The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

A. Price proposals should support the proposed technical approach and will be evaluated for completeness, and reasonableness. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award.

B. Completeness. The proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements have been addressed. The contractor’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 contractor’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the RFP requirements.

C. Reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government 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 15.404-1(b)(2).

TABLE C – Factor 2: Price

Rating Description Acceptable Price is deemed fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.4

Unacceptable Price cannot be deemed fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.4

4. Past Performance. In accordance with FAR 15.504 (c)(3)(iii), Past Performance is not considered to be necessary as an evaluation factor due to the already stringent First Article Test requirements. Although past performance may not be used as an evaluation factor, the proposal submitted by the contractor to meet Factor 1 and information obtained from other sources available to the Government such as the 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.

5. Ombudsman. In accordance with AFFARS 5352.201-9101, Ombudsman (JUN 2016), an Ombudsman has been appointed to hear and facilitate the resolution of concerns from Offerors, potential Offerors, and others for this acquisition. If resolution cannot be made by the CO, concerned parties may contact the following:

AFICC/KH (Chief Enlisted Manager) 25 E Street, Suite B-100

JBPH-H, HI 96853-5427

Phone: (808) 449-8569

FAX: (808) 449-8571