Attachment 1_Instructions to Offerors and Basis of Award.pdf

Simplified Acquisition Proposal Request (SAPR), Attachment 1

FA445224R0009

Instructions to Offerors/Basis of Award

1. Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services:

A. This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial services prepared in accordance with

(IAW) the format in subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposal is being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. This is a competitive simplified acquisition selection conducted IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13. Contracts awarded under FAR 13 are not subject to FAR 15.3 procedures. Accordingly, award of a contract under this Simplified Acquisition Proposal Request (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 requirements as stated in the SAPR, 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. The Services Acquisition Decision Authority (SADA) will select the best submission which conforms to the SAPR requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the submission instructions), and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the

Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who is best suited to fulfill the

Air Force requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the SADA reasonably determines that the overall business approach of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference.

C. Exceptions and Discrepancies. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to SAPR terms and conditions and shall provide complete supporting rationale using the format and content of the table below for any such notice. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions as unacceptable. Any exception determined unacceptable by the

Government may result in the Offeror’s proposal being determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Additionally, if the Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the Contract

Specialist and Contracting Officer via the Question & Answer (Q&A) Matrix (Attachment 5) with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the Offeror is asking the CO to consider. If the CO determines the error or omission to be substantive, an amendment to the SAPR may be issued.

Any exceptions or discrepancies should be emailed to the Contract Specialist (CS) at jessica.montgomery.6@us.af.mil AND CO at andres.silva.8@us.af.mil No Later Than (NLT)

12:00 PM (Central Time) on 9 August 2024.

SAPR Exceptions

SAPR

Document

Page/ Paragraph

Requirement/ Portion

Rationale

PWS, 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 an 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 solely on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal.

E. Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). Offerors shall identify any conflict of interest or appearance issues which may be a potential OCI IAW FAR Subpart 9.5, as supplemented, and any solicitation provisions/clause(s). At the time of submitting a proposal, an

Organizational Conflict of Interest Identification and Mitigation Plan or a statement that no

OCI exists shall be included within the Offeror’s Volume I, Contractual Documents. The

Government-accepted Organizational Conflict of Interest Identification and Mitigation Plan shall be incorporated by reference into the resultant contract. Offerors are responsible for immediately notifying the Contracting Officer should any potential conflict of interest arise at any time prior to and/or after contract award.

F. Proposal Submission: Each Offeror shall submit their proposal electronically to the email boxes of the Contract Specialist, Ms. Jessica Montgomery at jessica.montgomery.6@us.af.mil and the Contracting Officer, Mr. Andres Silva at andres.silva.8@us.af.mil The proposal shall be submitted no later than the required proposal due date and time. The Offeror shall indicate the volume number and title on each document and use separate files to permit rapid location of information, as described in paragraph G below. Failure to provide the items listed above and below may render your proposal incomplete. Incomplete proposals will not be evaluated. The Offeror shall submit their proposal for consideration no later than 12:00 PM Central Standard Time (CST) on 15

August 2024. Only one proposal shall be submitted, per Offeror, in response to the SAPR.

Proposals received after the date/time specified will not be evaluated.

G. Offerors submitting a proposal in response to this SAPR shall submit the following volumes as specified below. The Offeror’s proposal shall be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Text shall be single-spaced, with 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. Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems, and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc.

Pages shall be numbered consecutively within each volume. All proposal information shall be submitted in either Microsoft Word or PDF format except for the Pricing Matrix

(Attachment 4), Pricing shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel format utilizing the

Attachments provided. Each volume shall be submitted as a separately labeled electronic file.

Offerors shall ensure that pricing information is only included in Attachment 4 – Pricing

Worksheet. Do NOT include any pricing information in any other Volume. All unit and extended prices provided shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. Extended prices shall be divisible by the number of units proposed with no fractional cents. Offerors shall submit their proposal in accordance with the table below and reference the complete SAPR number in the subject line. Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered by the Government. If Interchange Notices (INs) are required, page limitations may be placed on responses to INs. The specified page limits to

INs responses will be identified in the INs to the Offeror. Each page shall be counted except the following: Blank Pages, Cover Pages, Table of Contents, glossaries, Provisions and

Clauses(Attachment 6), Attachment 4 (Pricing Worksheet), or Organizational Conflict of

Interest and Mitigation Plan, if required.

Volume Reference Title Maximum # of

Pages

I-Administrative Cover Page No Limit

II – Technical

Factor 1

Sample Project

No Limit

Factor 2 Oral Presentation

Slides 20 Slides

III – Price Factor 3 Attachment 4 –

Pricing Worksheet

Use excel document provided

I. Volume I: Administrative

This volume shall include the following:

• Cover Letter shall be submitted on company letterhead and shall include the following:

o SAPR Number o Small Business status/category o Company’s Primary and Alternate Points of Contact with email/phone and who is authorized to contractually obligate the company o CAGE Code o Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) o Offeror shall address any assumptions to the Contracting Officer or provide a statement that no assumptions are made of the requirements o If proposing a teaming arrangement or a subcontractor, the

Offeror shall provide the following of the other company:

▪ Company Name

▪ CAGE Code

▪ Business Size

*A statement that the proposal is valid through October 1, 2024.

• Provisions & Clauses (Attachment 6) with all fill-ins complete

• Organizational Conflict of Interest Identification and Mitigation Plan, if applicable

*Proposals not valid through 1 October 2024 will be deemed unacceptable.

II. Volume II: Technical Proposal

The Technical Proposal should be specific and complete. . Your responses will be evaluated against the Factors defined in the Basis of Award below. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. At a minimum, the Offeror’s proposal shall address factor 1, as they apply to The Mobility Forum Magazine PWS.

The technical proposal should demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to perform the technical requirements. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the Performance Work Statement .

Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation. This volume shall include a sample project and oral presentation slides and any pertinent organizational information deemed appropriate to disclose to the

Government.

III. Volume III: Price

Factor 3- Price. The Offeror shall submit pricing information to support the completeness and reasonableness of their proposed prices for all CLINs. The pricing information submitted shall fully support the requirements specified in the PWS. A price breakdown shall be provided by filling out Attachment 4 Pricing Worksheet.

The breakdown should show the skill mix, labor categories, labor rates and position descriptions. Information shall be segregated by the performance periods, individual performance locations and the total price for each CLIN as specified in the solicitation. Information shall also show the consolidated total price for performance.

2. Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Product and Commercial

Services:

A. Award will be made in accordance with the procedures specified in the SAPR to the

Offeror whose proposal results in the best value to the Government. A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the SAPR’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the SAPR instructions), and is judged, based on the evaluation Factors, to represent the best value to the Government. This may result in award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors. Therefore, the Government will award a contract to the Offeror considered to be the best value, price and other factors considered.

B. Following receipt of the responses to the SAPR, the Government will assign each

Factor an adjectival rating, as defined below, and then perform a comparative analysis

(comparing Offeror proposals to one another) in order to select the Offeror that is best suited to fulfill the requirements of the SAPR. The comparative analysis will be based on the Offeror’s responses to the Factors outlined in the SAPR

This SAPR will be evaluated against the following factors:

Factor 1: Sample Project

Factor 2: Oral Presentation

Factor 3: Price

i. Factor 1: Sample Project

Under this factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Sample project. The sample project submitted shall be from an existing publication the vendor currently publishes or published within the last 3 years. Under this factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Sample Project based on the following:

i. Pictures and photos for body of story and cover are of high resolution and help to tell the story.

ii. Layout makes full use of the pages, is easy to navigate and catches the eye with readable fonts, uses an appropriate background image or color and is balanced.

iii. Use of the English language demonstrates an understanding of sentence construct, and compelling story telling with minimal grammatical errors.

During the evaluation of Factor 1, the Government will assign each criteria in Factor 1, a rating, as shown in table 1 below, to identify an Offeror's ability to accomplish each criteria. A rating of unacceptable in two or more criterion will constitute an overall rating of unacceptable for the

Sample Project evaluation of Factor 1. Offerors will be scored by the following adjectival ratings:

Table 1

Rating Definition

Acceptable Sample Project indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements.

Unacceptable Sample Project does not indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements.

ii. Factor 2: Oral Presentation

There shall be no duplicate information provided in the Technical Pitch that has already been addressed in Factor 1. Military specific knowledge related to the factors below may be rated higher. Under this factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Technical Pitch based on the following:

i. The offeror shall demonstrate their overall ability to meet the requirements of the PWS.

ii. The offeror shall demonstrate experience interacting with senior organizational leaders.

iii. The offeror shall demonstrate their knowledge of writing articles related to Mishap

Prevention, Risk Management, and Proactive Safety Programs.

iv. The offeror shall address research methods to be utilized in the production of safety related articles for DoD/AF/AMC safety communities, as well as the general public.

v. The offeror shall discuss their ability to meet travel (foreign/domestic) requirements, conduct interviews (in-person/telephonic), and meet production (to include unplanned/popup) deadlines.

During the evaluation of Factor 2, the Government will assign each criteria in Factor 2, a rating, as shown in table 2 below, to identify an Offeror's ability to accomplish each criteria. A rating of unacceptable in one or more criterion will constitute an overall rating of unacceptable for the

Technical evaluation of Factor 2. Offerors will be scored by the following adjectival ratings:

Table 2

Rating Definition

Superior Proposal indicates an exceptional understanding of the requirements.

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements.

Unacceptable Proposal does not indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements.

iii. Factor 3: Price

1. Price proposals should support the technical proposal and will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unbalanced will not be considered for award.

2. An Initial TEP (I-TEP) will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror's proposed prices for the one 12-month base period, four one-year options, and the six-month extension of services (calculated using the monthly cost of Option 4 multiplied by 6). Evaluation of options and extensions shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The six-month extension of services is IAW FAR 52.217-8, "Option to Extend Services" and will be utilized if necessary. The six-month extension of services is not to be considered part of the Option Period 4 period and will be a separate option exercised if it is utilized.

Offerors are not required to submit pricing for the six-month extension of services. The I-

TEP will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing (after any Interchanges or proposal revisions (if needed), to arrive at the TEP. Under this factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s TEP based on the following:

3. 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.

4. Reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it shall 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).

5. Unbalanced pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer 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 (1) or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. An offer may be rejected, if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to 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. The Government intends to make award based on initial proposal submissions without conducting interchanges.

Therefore, each proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to hold interchanges using INs, if during any portion of the evaluation it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

Interchanges may be conducted with none, one, all, or a limited number of Offerors to address any issues, if necessary. The Government is not required to conduct interchanges with any or all

Offerors responding to this SAPR. Offeror responses to INs will be considered in making the best value selection decision.

The Government intends, if it is in the best interest, to incorporate into the resulting contract, all beneficial aspects of the awardee’s proposal (to include all above minimum attributes, performance levels, or capabilities) for which evaluation credit was given. The Government will use PWS Attachment 1 to Incorporate Performance or Capability Exceedances, as stated in

SAPR Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement