Attachment 18 Sections L and M Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Factors 9 Mar 2021.pdf

Attachment 18-FA488721R0014 Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Criteria

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders

1. PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.1. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The response shall consist of three separate parts, Part I - Price Proposal, Part II – Technical Execution Plan, and Part III - Past Performance Information.

1.2. The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists, generally no additional data will be requested to determine the reasonableness of price. However, if there are unusual circumstances where it is concluded that additional data is necessary to determine the reasonableness of price, the contracting officer shall, to the maximum extent practicable, obtain the additional data from sources other than the offeror.

1.3. Points of Contact.

The Contracting Officer (CO) and Contract Specialist (CS) listed below are the Government’s sole points of contact for this acquisition.

56 CONS/PKB

Joshua Wolery Procuring Contracting Officer Telephone: 623-856-3441 joshua.wolery.2@us.af.mil

56 CONS/PKB

1st Lt Bailey Grimes Contracting Specialist Telephone: 623-856-2782 bailey.grimes.1@us.af.mil

56 CONS/PKB

Chad LaValley Administering Contracting Officer Telephone: 623-856-9664 chad.lavalley.1@us.af.mil

2. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS:

2.1. PART I – PRICE PROPOSAL - Submit original and one (1) sanitized copy.

2.1.1. Complete blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 (if applicable) and 20 a-c of the

Request for Proposal (RFP) Section A of the SF 1442. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP Sections A through K. These sections constitute the model contract.

2.1.2. Total Evaluated Price: Complete and submit the Price Evaluation Worksheet (Attachment 19) which will represent the Total Evaluated Price. The Total Evaluated Price should be provided as the contract line item (CLIN) 0001 in Section B of the solicitation. Note to Offerors: Offerors providing less than 180 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due may not be considered and may be rejected.

2.2. PART II - TECHNICAL EXECUTION PLAN - Submit original and one (1) sanitized copy. Submit a maximum of (15) pages for the Technical Execution Plan.

This technical narrative will be evaluated to assess an offeror’s capabilities and overall execution strategy to ensure successful performance throughout all stages of performance to include initial mobilization, normal operations sustainment, surge response, and workforce recruitment. In addition, Provide proof of bonding capacity in the form of a surety letter (maximum of (2) pages), which guarantees the Offeror is eligible to be bonded for a minimum of $250,000 for a single project and $3,000,000 aggregate.

2.2.1. Initial Mobilization: Effective mobilization and commencement after the contract is awarded is of key importance as well as throughout performance on the contract.

Offerors should submit information in sufficient detail for the Government to be able to assess how quickly the offeror will be able to commence performance after work has been requested and describe how you are poised to be able to handle the requirements of the contract. Key information for the Government is how long after contract award mobilization will occur for any management, administrative or labor workforce to commence performance as well as any plant, equipment, or materials that will need to be put into action. Include timelines for anticipated key events in the mobilization process.

2.2.2. Normal Operations Sustainment: Consistent performance and a responsive posture are highly desired. As work is requested it is important that the offeror is able to steadily progress through the work required in a responsive nature without durations of downtime or extended periods of waiting to commence during normal operations. It is imperative that Offerors have assets, materials, equipment, and personnel at their disposal and are able to utilize them in a flexible nature to meet the varying types of work that will be required. Offerors should submit information in sufficient detail for the Government to be able to assess what and how those assets, materials, equipment and personnel will be utilized during normal performance of the contract and also what and how much of those assets, materials, equipment and personnel belong to the offeror in comparison to those subcontracted for.

2.2.3. Surge Response: At times throughout the contract there may be periods of much higher demand than the operating normal. The contractor is expected to be able to adjust operations accordingly and successfully meet that demand and maintain adequate levels of response time and completion deadlines. Offerors should submit information in sufficient detail to convey to the Government the offeror’s plan to handle cyclical or sudden surges in demand. Key items to be addressed should include span of control and augmentation of project management, quality control, and superintendence and equally if not more importantly, how the offeror intends to meet the need for additional labor to perform the work during periods of surge where volume can increase by 35% or more in a short period of time (often times right after or before Fiscal Year End).

2.2.4. Workforce Recruitment: In order to successfully perform the tasks required under this contract the ability to recruit and retain talent and skilled labor is crucial to successful performance. The number of personnel, skill of personnel, and how the offeror plans on utilizing staff to oversee and perform work under this contract will have a significant impact on performance. Offerors should submit information in sufficient detail for the Government to be able to assess how the offeror intends to initially staff as well as manage the overall labor force that will be performing under the contract.

2.2.5. Bonding: Provide proof of bonding capacity in the form of a surety letter

(maximum of (2) pages), which guarantees the Offeror is eligible to be bonded for a minimum of $250,000 for a single project and $3,000,000 aggregate. The document must include the surety company’s name, address, telephone number, and points of contact. The surety must be listed in the Department of Treasury Circular 570, “Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and Acceptable Reinsuring Companies”. The project and aggregate bonding amounts shall not exceed the surety’s underwriting limit certified by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

2.3. PART III – PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION – Submit a maximum of three (3) references for recent and relevant past efforts/contracts (maximum of 30 pages).

2.3.1. The government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror’s performance deemed recent and relevant to the requirements of this RFP. Recent performance is performance conducted within the last three years. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving plant, supervision, quality control, labor, tools, equipment, appliances, and materials, and performance of all work necessary for maintenance and repair projects that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity to the effort described in this solicitation. The government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources such as other Federal government offices and commercial sources, to assess performance.

2.3.2. Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Performed in the Past Three Years.

Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for same or similar type contract.

In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc. Provide the following information for each quality and satisfaction rating:

a. Company/Division name

b. Product/Service

c. Contracting Agency/Customer

d. Contract Number

e. Contract Dollar Value

f. Period of Performance

g. Verified, up-to-date name, address, FAX & telephone number of the contracting officer

h. Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

i. Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions

j. If recency or relevancy to the instant requirement is not readily apparent, it is the offeror’s responsibility to explain

2.3.3. Performance Questionnaires: The offeror will provide the government furnished questionnaire (Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment 4) to those federal agencies and commercial customers whose efforts are deemed recent and relevant and direct them to return the completed questionnaires to the point of contact listed on the questionnaire. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have recent, relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.

NOTE: PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES WILL

NOT BE ACCEPTED FROM THE OFFEROR; IT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY

THE RATER. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OFFEROR TO FOLLOW

UP WITH THE RATER IN ORDER TO ENSURE PAST AND PRESENT

PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES ARE SUBMITTED TO THE

GOVERNMENT BY THE RFP DUE DATE.

2.3.4. Teaming Arrangement: If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past/present performance information on previous teaming arrangements with the same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contracts.

2.3.5. Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor (Attachment 17).

3. Documents submitted in response to this RFP must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:

a) Requirements of the RFP Price Schedules, Statement of Work (SOW), and government standards and regulations pertaining to the SOW

b) Evaluation Factors for Award in Section M of this RFP

c) The page limitation for Part II of the proposal is 17 pages ((15) for the Technical

Execution Plan and (2) for the Bonding Surety Letter). Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth in this Section L may not be read or evaluated, and may be removed from the proposal

d) The page limitation for Part III of the proposal is 30 pages. Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth in this Section L may not be read or evaluated, and may be removed from the proposal

e) Format for proposal Part II and Part III shall be as follows:

1) A page is defined as one face of an 8 ½” x 11” sheet of paper containing information

2) Typing shall not be less than 12 pitch

3) Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are not desired or required

f) Sanitized Copy as follows; Offerors shall submit original and one (1) sanitized copy of Part I (Price Proposal) and Part II (Technical Execution Plan). The sanitized copy includes the CAGE code but does not have any company name or markings.

g) All volumes shall be submitted electronically via DoD Secure Access File Exchange Service (DoD SAFE) at https://safe.apps.mil to the Contracting Officer(s) and Contract Specialist listed in section L paragraph 1.3, with each Volume included as a separate file. Offerors shall request a drop-off by emailing your name, phone number, and email address to the Contracting Officer(s) and Contract Specialist listed in section L paragraph 1.3 at a minimum of (3) calendar days prior to the proposal submission deadline listed in the solicitation.

https://safe.apps.mil/

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

1. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which Technical and Past Performance are of equal importance and when combined are significantly more important than cost or price. While the Government evaluation team will strive for maximum objectivity, the selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, and representations and certifications, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

1.2. PRICE EVALUATION: Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be evaluated utilizing the Price Evaluation Worksheet (Attachment 19), as the basis for the overall price. All offerors will be ranked by price according to the proposals submitted with the lowest total evaluated priced offeror ranked first. Offerors whose total evaluated price is unreasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3), unbalanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1), or unrealistically high or low may not be considered for award.

1.2.1. 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. Note that unrealistically low or high proposed costs or prices when compared to government estimates, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or has submitted an unrealistic proposal.

1.2.2. Balance. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether proposed prices are unbalanced pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(g). 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 TEP, the coefficient is significantly over or understated. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price, variable quantity matrix factors, and option prices. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

1.3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION: Offerors are required to submit a Technical Execution Plan. This technical narrative will be evaluated to assess an offeror’s capabilities and overall execution strategy to ensure successful performance throughout all stages of performance to include initial mobilization, normal operations sustainment, surge response, and workforce recruitment. In addition, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s bonding capacity to ensure it meets the requirements of the solicitation. The Technical Execution Plan will be evaluated and assessed an overall rating in accordance with Table 1 below.

RATING RATING DESCRIPTION - TABLE 1

(O) Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

(G) Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

(A) Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

(M) Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

(U) Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Table 1 – Risk Rating Matrix

1.3.1. Initial Mobilization: The Government will evaluate the contractor’s plan for the initial mobilization of personnel, plant, equipment and materials along with the timeline associated with those activities with the intent of determining the level of risk and likelihood of successful performance with the implementation of the plan as submitted.

1.3.2. Normal Operations Sustainment: The Government will evaluate the contractor’s plan for sustaining the normal operations and a responsive posture. Specifically, how the contractor will utilize assets, materials, equipment, and personnel, the flexibility that the plan provides, and also evaluate the impact of organic capabilities and subcontracted capabilities and its role in the likelihood of success and risk to successful performance will be evaluated.

1.3.3. Surge Response: The Government will evaluate the contractor’s plan with the intent of determining the level of risk and likelihood of successful performance in accounting for fluctuations in the amount of work that can be accomplished and keeping completion timeframes within the timeframes established in the contract and addressing the conditions listed in Section L Paragraph 2.2.3.

1.3.4. Workforce Recruitment: The Government will evaluate the contractor’s plan for recruiting and retaining talented and skilled labor. Specifically, the number of personnel and skill of personnel, and how the contractor intends to initially staff and manage the overall labor force for the duration of the contract.

1.3.5. Bonding. The Government will evaluate the contractor’s bonding capacity by reviewing the surety letter (maximum of (2) pages), which guarantees the Offeror is eligible to be bonded for a minimum of $250,000 for a single project and $3,000,000 aggregate. The document must include the surety company’s name, address, telephone number, and points of contact. The surety must be listed in the Department of Treasury Circular 570, “Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and Acceptable Reinsuring Companies”. The project and aggregate bonding amounts shall not exceed the surety’s underwriting limit certified by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

1.4. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on offerors based on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. The evaluation of the performance questionnaires will also be considered. The Past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement may not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

1.4.1. Recency: An evaluation of the present/past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. Recency is defined as active contract performance during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance as of three (3) years from the date of this solicitation, will be considered recent. Ongoing projects may be used as long as they are at least 80% complete as of the date of issuance of this solicitation (A progress report signed by a Government Contracting Officer or Non-Federal Government equivalent must be provided to prove actual completion percentage). If a contract reference is determined recent (had some or all active performance in the three (3) years preceding the solicitation issuance date), and had active performance prior to the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation, the Government may evaluate the Offeror’s performance record during the entire contract period.

Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

1.4.2. Relevancy: Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving plant, supervision, quality control, labor, tools, equipment, appliances, materials, and performance of all work necessary for the maintenance and repair of facilities that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity to the effort described in this solicitation. The Statement of Work (SOW) includes materials and labor from many construction fields; carpentry, masonry, welding, sheet-metal fabrication, electrical plumbing, painting, and carpet laying. Complexity is defined as the ability to perform and manage several task orders at the same time and successfully perform similar or higher magnitudes than described in the solicitation.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the requirement described in the RFP based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The Government will use the below relevancy definitions in Table 2 when evaluating the relevancy of past performance.

LEVEL OF

RELEVANCE PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY DEFINITIONS – TABLE 2

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table 2 – Relevancy Definitions for Past Performance

1.4.3. Performance Confidence Assessment: Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the technical requirements and work required of this acquisition. This evaluation of the recent past performance information will result in Offerors receiving an Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating, as defined in Table 3 below. In evaluating past performance, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. A more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating.

Rating PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT (PCA) RATING

DESCRIPTION - TABLE 3

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral

Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Table 3 – Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

1.4.3.1. The Past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement may not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

1.4.3.2. Offerors are advised to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

1.5. DISCUSSIONS: The Government reserves the right to award without discussions and make an award based on initial proposals; as such, Offerors are advised to submit sufficient information and in the format specified. Discussions may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of Contracting Officer judgment. Offerors may be restricted to a short turnaround (less than 24 hours) in responding to the Contracting Officer. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, a competitive range will be determined and the Offeror’s responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their offer (for example: the relevance of past/present performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. If, upon submission of the FPR, an Offeror materially changes their proposal such that the price is no longer fair and reasonable or sufficient to keep them among the most highly rated Offerors or other factor inputs change their ranking among other Offerors, the Offeror may be removed from consideration for award. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for revisions.

1.6. RESPONSIBILITY: In addition to the evaluation factors noted above, in compliance with the policies set forth in FAR Subpart 9.1 the Government will assess whether the apparent successful offeror is responsible and capable of fulfilling the requirements therein.

2. PROPOSAL EVALUATION METHOD

Step 1: All offers will be reviewed for responsiveness and completeness. Incomplete and non-responsive proposals will be eliminated from further consideration unless the Contracting Officer determines it is within the best interest of the Government to consider the offeror for further evaluation.

Step 2: All offerors will be ranked by price according to the proposals submitted with the lowest total evaluated price ranked first and evaluations will commence with the offeror with the lowest total evaluated price and proceed in order in accordance with the subsequent steps.

Step 3: The Technical Execution Plan will be evaluated and assigned a technical rating in accordance with Table 1. If the technical rating is “Acceptable” or better it will advance to the next step.

Step 4: The Past Performance Information will be evaluated and assigned a performance confidence assessment rating in accordance with Table 3.

Step 5: Evaluations will proceed until an offeror receives an “Outstanding” technical rating and a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment rating. If that occurs, the Government reserves the right to cease evaluations and that offeror will be the apparent successful offeror. If no offerors receive the highest ratings, evaluations will continue until all responsive and complete offers are evaluated and ratings assigned.

Step 6: If no offeror received an “Outstanding” technical rating and a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment rating, the Source Selection Authority may continue to make an integrated assessment best value determination, and award to the lowest priced, responsible offeror with the highest technical and past performance confidence assessment ratings.