Attachment 2- Instructions to Offerors_Basis of Award.pdf

Simplified Acquisition Proposal Request (SAPR)

FA910122RB014

Attachment 2 - Instructions to Offerors/Basis of

Award

1. Instructions to Offerors:

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

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13. Contracts awarded under FAR Part 13 are not subject to FAR Subpart 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 Part 13, as supplemented.

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

1 – Technical Requirements. 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 or an unfavorable proposal evaluation, or being deemed ineligible for award. The Contracting officer (CO) 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 Contracting

Officer reasonably determines that the technical approach and/or technical experience of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference.

C. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to SAPR terms and conditions and must 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.

SAPR Exceptions

SAPR

Document

Page/

Paragraph

Requirement/ Portion Rationale

Spec, 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 that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the 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. Each Offeror shall submit proposals electronically to the Contracting Officer, Ms. Haley Smith, at haley.smith.10@us.af.mil. The proposal shall be submitted no later than the required proposal due date. 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 H 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 as instructed in the solicitation. Only one proposal shall be submitted, per company, in response to this SAPR. Proposals received after the date/time specified will not be evaluated.

G. Offerors submitting a proposal in response to this SAPR shall submit a technical volume

(Volume I), and a price volume (Volume II). Text shall be single spaced, on an 8 ½ x 11 inch sheet of paper with a minimum of a one‐inch margin 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. The page limits prescribed are maximum page limits for each volume. All proposal information shall be submitted in either Microsoft Word or PDF format, except for the Document Verification and Self Scoring

Worksheet (Volume I, Factor 1) and pricing information (Volume II. The Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel format (SAPR Attachment 3).

Pricing information shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel format (SAPR Attachment 5). Each volume shall be submitted as a separately‐labeled electronic file. Offerors shall ensure that pricing information is only included in Volume II ‐ Pricing. Do NOT include any pricing information in

Volume I ‐ Technical. 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. Submit your proposal electronically IAW the table below. All electronic proposal submissions shall reference the completed SAPR number in the subject line.

VOLUME

REFERENCE

TITLE MAXIMUM NUMBER

OF PAGES

I-Technical

Cover Letter 2 Pages

Factor 1 Document Verification and Self Scoring

Worksheet

Limited to the template. No page limitations for

Associated Supporting

Documents

Factor 2 Technical Approach 10 Pages

Factor 3 Technical Experience No page limitations.

Contractual

Documentation *See Below

II-Price Factor 4 Price ** See Below

* Volume I – Technical shall include the submission of the SAPR Attachment 4 – Provisions &

Clauses.

**Volume II ‐ Pricing shall include the submission of SAPR Attachment 5 – Pricing Worksheet.

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 to IN responses will be identified in the INs to the Offerors. Each page shall be counted except the following: blank pages, cover pages, table of contents, glossaries, Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet (SAPR

Attachment 3), Associated Supporting Documents needed to support the Document Verification and

Self Scoring Worksheet, Provisions & Clauses (SAPR Attachment 4) and Pricing Worksheet (SAPR

Attachment 5).

Volume I: Cover Letter

Cover Letter shall be submitted on company letterhead that includes the SAPR number, Offerors’ 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 technical requirements therein, a statement that the company does or does not take exception to any of the requirements of this contract and a statement that the proposal is valid through 31 October 2022. The Offeror shall include a statement that the requirement will be delivered Free on Board (FOB) Destination to Arnold AFB, TN within 365 calendar days after receipt of award.

*Proposals not valid through 31 October 2022 will not be considered for award.

Volume I, Factor 1: Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet

Each Offeror shall complete and submit SAPR Attachment 3 – Document Verification and Self Scoring

Worksheet. No other format or additional proposal document will be considered. Do not alter rows or columns of SAPR Attachment 3 – Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet. Each Offeror shall fill‐in Column C by entering “Meets” or “Does Not Meet” for each Minimum Technical

Requirement listed. Do not leave any cells for Column C blank. If “Meets” is entered in Column C, the corresponding supporting document requested in Column D shall be submitted in Volume I, and a proposal reference shall be provided in Column E.

Volume I, Factor 2: Technical Approach

Offerors shall propose a technical approach for meeting the Government’s minimum technical requirements (IAW SAPR Attachment 1 – Technical Requirements). The technical approach shall be provided in the form of a written Technical Narrative. The Technical Narrative shall demonstrate the

Offeror’s ability to deliver the technical requirements of the UV-NIR Spectrometer Suite in accordance with Attachment 1 - Technical Requirements.

Project Milestones shall accompany the Technical Narrative, and shall reference planned, significant events scheduled to occur at specific times throughout one, 12‐month delivery period.

Volume I, Factor 3: Technical Experience

Offerors shall submit at least one (but no more than three) project(s) that demonstrate experience supplying spectrometers in the UV and/or visible spectral regions that have data logging capabilities.

The submitted projects shall meet the following minimum conditions:

Each project shall be similar (or greater) in size, scope and complexity of this acquisition. No project may be used more than once.

Each project submitted must be ongoing or have been completed within five‐years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Include Contractor Name, Contract Number, Order Number (if applicable), Project Title, Total Period of

Performance (or Delivery Period, if applicable, including options), Project Value, Description of the work performed relevant to the requirements of this acquisition, and Contact Information (i.e. name, phone number, and email) of the agency/company point of contact with cognizance over the project.

Volume II, Factor 4: 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 Factor 2 –

Technical Approach. Information shall also show individual item costs in addition to the consolidated total price. This volume shall include the Pricing Worksheet (SAPR Attachment 5).

2. Basis of Award:

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.

B. The Government intends to conduct the contract selection and evaluation process in three phases:

Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3. In Phase 1, Factor 1 – Document Verification and Self Scoring

Worksheet, will be evaluated. Proposals that receive an acceptable rating for Factor 1 in Phase 1, will be included in Phase 2 evaluations. In Phase 2, Factor 2 – Technical Approach, will be evaluated. Proposals that receive an acceptable rating for Factor 2 in Phase 2 will be included in Phase 3 evaluations. In Phase

3, Factor 3 – Technical Experience and Factor 4 – Price will be evaluated. The Government will perform a comparative analysis in Phase 3 in order to select the Offeror that is best suited to fulfill the requirements of the SAPR. The comparative analysis (comparing proposals to each other) will be based on the Offeror’s responses to Factor 3 – Technical Experience, and Factor 4 – Price, given their stated relative order of importance. The relative order of importance of Factor 3 and Factor 4 is as follows:

Factor 3 – Technical Experience is more important than Factor 4 - Price.

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 of factors, to represent the best value to the Government. The

Government seeks to award to the contractor who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the 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 Decision Authority reasonably determines that technical experience of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference. While the Government evaluation team will strive for maximum objectivity, the contract selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

C. 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 the initial proposal submissions without conducting interchanges. Therefore, each Offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to hold interchanges using Interchange Notices (INs) if, during the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. 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.

Once the Government determines (through the comparative analysis) the Offeror that is best‐ suited to meet the stated requirements, the Government reserves the right to conduct post- selection interchanges with only that Offeror to address any remaining issues, which may include technical or price. If post‐ selection interchanges with the best‐suited Offeror do not result in contract award, the Government may conduct post‐selection interchanges, which may include technical or price, with the next best‐suited

Offeror, based on the original analysis. This process will continue until a contract is awarded.

3. Evaluation Factors.

As discussed in Paragraph 2.B. above, the Government intends to conduct the evaluation and selection process in three phases: Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3.

A. PHASE 1: In Phase 1, responses to this SAPR will be evaluated against the following

Factor:

Factor 1: Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet. Under this factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet, based on the following measures of merit:

“Meets” is entered in Column C for each Minimum Technical Requirement listed.

A proposal reference is provided in Column E for each Minimum Technical Requirement marked

“Meets” in Column C.

Each proposal reference provided in Column E is for the corresponding supporting document requested in Column D.

The Government will assign the Factor an adjectival rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable, as defined in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Factor 1 Ratings

Rating Definition

Acceptable All self-assessed ratings in Column C are “meets”, a proposal reference has been provided in Column E, and the proposal reference supports the self-assessed rating “meets”.

Unacceptable At least one self-assessed rating in Column C is “does not meet”, or a proposal reference provided in Column E does not support a self- assessed rating of “meets”.

B. PHASE 2: For proposals rated Acceptable in Phase 1, responses to this SAPR will be evaluated in Phase 2 against the following Factor:

Factor 2: Technical Approach. Under this factor, the Government will evaluate the proposal’s

Technical Approach based on the following measures of merit:

Provides a technical approach, in the form of a Technical Narrative, which meets the minimum technical requirements specified in SAPR Attachment 1 – Technical Requirements.

Provides Project Milestones that reference planned, significant events scheduled to occur at specific times throughout one, 12‐month delivery period.

The Government will assign the Factor an adjectival rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable, as defined in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Factor 2 Ratings

Rating Definition

Acceptable The proposal meets all measures of merit for Factor 2.

Unacceptable The proposal does not meet all measures of merit for Factor 2.

C. PHASE 3: For proposals rated Acceptable in Phase 2, responses to this SAPR will be evaluated in Phase 3 against the following Factors:

Factor 3: Technical Experience

Factor 4: Price

The Government will perform a comparative analysis (comparing proposals included in Phase 3 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 Factor 3 – Technical

Experience and Factor 4 – Price, given their stated relative order of importance. The relative order of importance of Factor 3 and Factor 4 is as follows: Factor 3 – Technical Experience is more important than Factor 4 - Price.

Factor 3: Technical Experience. Under this factor, the Government will evaluate Technical

Experience based on the following measures of merit:

Provides at least one (but no more than three) project reference(s) that are ongoing (or have been completed within five‐years from the date of issuance of this solicitation) that are similar in size, scope and complexity of this project. For each project reference, provide Contract Number, Order

Number (if applicable), Project Title, Total Period of Performance (or Delivery Period, if applicable, including options), Project Value, Description of the work performed relevant to the requirements of this acquisition, and Contact Information (i.e. name, phone number, and email) of the agency/company point of contact with cognizance over the project.

The Government will assign the Factor a rating of superior, acceptable, or unacceptable, as defined in Table 4 below. The overall Factor rating will be used for the comparative analysis. Technical

Experience will be rated by the following adjectival ratings:

Table 4: Factor 3 Ratings

Rating Definition

Superior Based on Technical Experience, there is a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the requirements stated in the SAPR.

Acceptable Based on Technical Experience, there is reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the requirements stated in the SAPR.

Unacceptable Based on Technical Experience, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the requirements stated in the SAPR.

Factor 4: Price.

Price proposals should support the proposed Factor 2 ‐ Technical Approach, and will be evaluated in terms of completeness, reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unbalanced will not be considered for award.

Each Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated (but not rated). The Offeror’s Initial Total Evaluated

Price (I‐TEP) will be calculated as the sum of all CLINs. After any interchanges, if necessary, the

Government will evaluate the Final TEP (F‐TEP). If interchanges do not occur, the I‐TEP will become the F‐TEP.

Under this factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s F‐TEP based on the following:

i. 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.

ii. 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 13.106-3(a).

iii. 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 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 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. Technical Exceedance.

The Government intends, if it is in the best interest, to incorporate into the resulting contract, any or all beneficial aspects of the awardee’s Proposal for which evaluation credit was given. The

Government will use Attachment 1 – Technical Requirements, to incorporate technical exceedances, as stated in SAPR Attachment 1 – Technical Requirements.

5. Responsibility Determination.

Although past performance may not be used as an evaluation factor, the projects submitted by the

Offeror to meet Technical Factor 3, Technical Experience, 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.