Attachment 3 Sections L and M.pdf

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES

TO OFFERORS

1. General Information

1.1. Solicitation Type: This is a Request for Quotation (RFQ) conducted under FAR Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures.

1.2. Project Title: Dyess AFB Multi Building Vindicators.

1.3. Description of Requirement: The Government requires the installation of Honey well vindicators (V3) at Dyess AFB, Texas, as detailed in the Statement of Work (SOW) and associated drawings and specifications, including all options.

1.4. Contract Type: The Government anticipates awarding a Firm-Fixed-Price contract.

However, the government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation at any point before an award is made. The government will not reimburse offers for any costs associated with preparation, or submittal of offers.

2. Instructions for Preparing Quotations

2.1. Submission Instructions:

2.1.1 Quotations must be submitted electronically to

rey_anthony.imperial@us.af.mil, and trevor.finch.1@us.af.mil by 22 September

2025 NLT 4:00 PM CDT.

2.1.2 Late quotations will not be considered.

2.2. Quotation Format: Quotations shall consist of the following separately attached documents:

2.2.1 Volume 1: Price Quotation (Mandatory)

2.2.1.1 Complete Attachment 7 - Pricing Schedule, including unit prices and extended amounts for all line items (Base Bid and Option Items).

2.2.1.2 Provide the total cost for Items 1-3.

2.3 Volume 2: Technical Approach (Mandatory)

2.3.1 Clearly and concisely describe your proposed approach to meeting the requirements outlined in the SOW, drawings, and specifications.

2.3.2 Include a brief project schedule indicating key milestones and deliverables.

mailto:rey_anthony.imperial@us.af.mil mailto:trevor.finch.1@us.af.mil

2.3.3 Describe your plan for addressing safety hazards, including training and the use of PPE, as outlined in the SOW.

2.3.4 Describe the equipment to be used to complete all work.

2.4 Volume 3: Past Performance Information (Mandatory)

2.4.1 Provide a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) references for contracts of similar size and scope performed within the last three (3) years.

2.4.2 For each reference, include:

2.4.2.1 Contract number

2.4.2.2 Customer name and address

2.4.2.3 Point of contact (name, title, phone number, and email address)

2.4.2.4 Brief description of the work performed

2.4.2.5 Contract value

2.4.2.6 Period of performance

2.4.2.7 Assessment of the Contractor's performance (e.g., on time, within budget, quality of work)

2.4.2.8 Current contracts for similar projects at Dyess AFB, shall be submitted

3. Page Limits:

3.2 Volume 2 (Technical Approach): Maximum 5 pages.

3.3 Volume 3 (Past Performance Information): Maximum 1 page per reference (up to 5 pages total).

4. Quotation Validity: Quotations must remain valid for a minimum of 90 days from the submission date.

5. Questions: Please submit questions to the email address rey_anthony.imperial@us.af.mil NLT September 17, 2025, 4:00 p.m. (CDT). An amendment will be issues answering all questions received.

6. Award Without Discussion: The Government intends to evaluate quotations and award a contract without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed necessary.

mailto:rey_anthony.imperial@us.af.mil

7. Best Value Determination: The Government will award to the offeror responsible whose quotation represents the best value to the Government, considering price, technical acceptability, and past performance.

8. Small Business Set-Aside: This procurement is 100% set aside for Small Business. Offerors must represent their size status in SAM.gov.

9. SAM Registration: All offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) at www.sam.gov, at time of quote submission to be eligible for award.

http://www.sam.gov/

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. Evaluation Factors

The Government will evaluate quotations based on the following factors:

1. Price

2. Technical Acceptability

3. Past Performance

2. Factor 1: Price

2.1 The Government will evaluate price by comparing the total price for all line items (Base Bid and Option Items) as submitted in Attachment 7: Pricing Schedule.

2.2 The Government will also evaluate the reasonableness of individual line item prices.

2.3 An unrealistically low price may be viewed as an indication of a lack of understanding of the requirements or an unacceptable level of risk.

3. Factor 2: Technical Acceptability

3.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror's technical approach based on its demonstration of a clear understanding of the requirements and its ability to successfully perform the work. The technical approach will be rated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable.

3.2 Acceptable: The quotation clearly demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirements, provides a feasible approach to completing the work, and demonstrates the ability to meet all specifications.

3.3 Unacceptable: The quotation fails to demonstrate a sufficient understanding of the requirements, proposes an unfeasible approach, or fails to meet one or more specifications.

3.4 Areas of Evaluation for Technical Acceptability:

3.4.1 Understanding of Requirements: Demonstrates a clear understanding of the SOW, drawings, and specifications.

3.4.2 Feasibility of Approach: Proposed approach is realistic, logical, and likely to achieve the desired results.

3.4.3 Project Schedule: Provides a reasonable project schedule with achievable milestones.

4. Factor 3: Past Performance

4.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror's past performance based on the information provided in the Past Performance Information volume and any other information available to the Government (e.g., CPARS).

4.2 The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror's ability to successfully perform the required work based on its previous experience.

4.3 Past performance will be rated as follows:

4.3.1 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.

4.3.2 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.

4.3.3 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.

4.3.4 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.

4.3.5 Neutral: No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror is a new entrant. A neutral rating will be assigned in these cases.

4.4 In determining the relevancy of past performance information, the Government will consider the following factors:

4.4.1 Similarity of the work performed to the requirements of this solicitation.

4.4.2 Contract dollar value.

4.4.3 Complexity of the work.

4.4.4 Recency of the performance.

4.4.5 Ability of contractor to complete work in accordance with Period of Performances.

4.5 The Government may consider past performance information from any available source, including but not limited to:

4.5.1 References provided by the offeror

4.5.2 CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System)

4.5.3 Other government databases

4.5.4 Information obtained through market research

5. Basis for Award

The Government will consider the evaluation results for all factors to determine which quotation represents the best value. The best value decision is a trade-off between price, technical acceptability, and past performance. A technically acceptable quotation with a strong past performance record may warrant paying a higher price than a lower-priced quotation with a weaker technical approach or a less favorable past performance record. The Government may select other than the lowest priced quote or the quote with the highest past performance confidence rating.