Attachment 3 - Sections L and M.pdf

L-1 QUOTATION PREPARATION

1.0 General Instructions: This section provides general guidance for preparing the proposal, as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. Throughout this section, the term “Offeror” means the prime contractor submitting the quote. The Offeror’s quote must include all data and information requested and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions.

Offeror shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of the Offeror’s facilities or experience and will base its evaluation solely on the information presented in the Offeror’s quote.

The quote shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Request for Quotations (RFQ) to enable the Government to perform a thorough and fair evaluation.

1.1 Type of Acquisition: This acquisition is a competitive total small business set aside in accordance with RFO part 12 and RFO part 19 procedures.

1.2 Post-Award/Pre-Performance Conference: A post-award/pre-performance conference will be scheduled by the Contracting Officer (CO) and held prior to the commencement of any work at that installation under the awarded contract. The Offeror or their duly authorized representative is required to attend the post-award/pre-performance conference.

1.3 Points of Contact (POC):

Contracting Officer:

NEO J. STAMPER, SSgt, USAF

47 CONS/PKA

neo.stamper@us.af.mil 171 Alabama Ave, Bldg 7 Laughlin AFB, TX 78843-5102

Contract Specialist:

ARTHUR L. JOHNSON, SrA, USAF

47 CONS/PKA

arthur.johnson.9@us.af.mil 171 Alabama Ave, Bldg 7 Laughlin AFB, TX 78843-5102

1.4 Submission of Proposal: Submit your proposal to both POCs identified at paragraph 1.3 no later than the date and time shown on Box 13A. All quotes shall be submitted electronically.

Quotes may be submitted via DoDSAFE. A submission link can be requested from the POCs above. Electronic copies shall be searchable documents compatible with Adobe Reader and/or Microsoft Office

1.5 Proposal Documentation: Offeror is required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions. The Offeror’s representations and certifications shall be current in the System for Award Management (SAM) at https://www.sam.gov. Sections K and L apply to the solicitation phase only; therefore, they will not be a physical part of the resulting contract.

L-2 QUOTATION PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

mailto:neo.stamper@us.af.mil mailto:arthur.johnson.9@us.af.mil https://www.sam.gov/

2.0 Executed Contract Documentation & Price Proposal: Submit your proposal in response to the solicitation to the POCs listed in paragraph 1.3 in the following format:

Tab 1 – SF 1442. Complete applicable blanks. In doing so, the Offeror agrees to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFQ Sections A through J. These sections constitute the model contract.

(a) Insert the proposed price to provide a complete and usable end product in accordance with the terms and conditions stated in this solicitation.

(b) Complete applicable blanks in Section C through J, and submit only those pages that require a fill-in.

(c) Complete the representations, certifications, and acknowledgements in Section K and return in its entirety.

Tab 2 – Acknowledge receipt of all amendments issued to this solicitation in box 19, print name and title of authorized person to sign offer in box 20A, sign box 20B, and date box 20C on the SF 1442 to be submitted with this proposal.

Tab 3 – Cost and Pricing Estimate. Prepare a line-item estimate detailing the individual cost elements, including but not limited to materials, equipment, labor, overhead, profit, and bonds.

The pricing information submitted should full support the statement of work requirements for each major functional element specified.

(a) The line-item estimate shall include unit prices and quantities for each cost line element prepared and submitted in a format similar to RS Means.

(b) The contractor shall provide the cost or pricing information and facts that can be reasonably expected to contribute to the soundness of estimates to include factors such as subcontractor quotes, data supporting projection of business prospects and objectives and related operations costs.

Tab 4 – Proposed Schedule and Project Narrative. Provide a proposed schedule that captures the major elements of work described in the statement of work, deliverables, and specifications to complete the project at minimum within the allotted period of performance (or sooner) and any other scheduled timelines for deliverables. The project narrative shall provide additional details to milestones and clarification to the work or deliverables included in each of the major elements of work in the proposed schedule.

Tab 5 – A Bid Guarantee is not required. See the applicable clauses for more information on bonding requirements.

Tab 6 – Technical (Acceptable/Unacceptable) Subfactor

(a) Subfactor 1: Site Management / Key Personnel

(b) Subfactor 2: Technical Responses to the Requirements

(1) With regard to Facilities

(2) With regard to Utilities

(c) Subfactor 3: Quality Control

(e) Subfactor 4: Schedule Driver

Tab 7 – Past Performance on previous projects (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

(a) Customer satisfaction / input on previous work

(b) Quality, timeliness and warranty of deliverables

(END OF INSTRUCTIONS)

M-1 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Basis of Award: Award will be made to the Offeror that represents the best value to the Government based on the evaluation of Price, Technical Acceptability, and Past Performance.

Technical Acceptability and Past Performance are approximately equal to Price when evaluated. A purchase order may be awarded to the contractor whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the solicitation instructions) and is judged based on the evaluation of technical factors and subfactors listed below.

2.0 Proposal Evaluation: The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. All technically acceptable proposals will be evaluated for Price and ranked from least to greatest total price. Therefore, the lowest priced offer, based on technical acceptability, will represent the best value to the Government. Award shall be made to that Offeror without further consideration to any other offers.

Technical Factors The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire quote unacceptable. Only those quotes determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for an agreement. However, the Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to enter into an agreement based on the initial quotation, as received, without discussion.

Table 1. Technical Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The quotations shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

(a) Subfactor 1 – Site Management / Key Personnel: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s submitted management plan. Specifically, the adequacy of the Offeror’s key project management and support staff and their approach to the management of the overall contract on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. It also evaluates the adequacy of the Offeror’s approach to subcontract management, inclusive of design and construction.

This document will be incorporated by reference in the resulting contract.

(1) Measure of Merit: This subfactor will be considered acceptable if the Offeror’s proposal clearly and logically addresses and meets the minimum requirements specified below and within this solicitation. The Offeror will be required to provide their approach to hiring qualified key project and support staff. The standard is met when the proposal:

(i) identifies the contractor’s overall approach to the management of the contract and provides an organizational diagram showing clear, logical lines of authority from Program Manager to subcontracting management, including site investigation, site superintendence, and quality control;

(ii) identifies the key project management and dedicated support staff by job title (i.e., program manager, project manager, quality control manager, site superintendent, health and safety manager); provides a brief job description and the qualifications required of each of these key personnel (e.g., education, training, professional qualifications, licenses, and experience relative to the tasks he/she will perform if awarded the contract);

(iii) identifies the logical lines and level of decision-making authority delegated to management and staff members (as a minimum, program manager shall have on-site decision-making authority);

(iv) briefly describes adequate policies and procedures for subcontractor management, including surveillance, recruitment and termination, quality control and scheduling;

(v) briefly describes the Offeror’s approach for recruiting, training, and retaining qualified staffing throughout the contract period;

(vi) demonstrates capability of preparing drawings on Computer Assisted Design Drawings (CADD) in compliance with A/E/C CAD Standards; and

(vii) briefly describes the Offeror’s proposed engineering expertise on site to rapidly resolve design and construction issues.

(b) Subfactor 2 – Technical Responsiveness to the Requirements: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s technical responsiveness to the requirements of the solicitation and if the Offeror’s proposal indicates they fully understand the design and construction execution requirements outlined in the solicitation:

(1) Measure of Merit: This subfactor will be considered acceptable if the Offeror’s quotation clearly and logically addresses and meets the minimum requirements specified below and within this solicitation. The Offeror will be required to provide their approach to design and construction requirements:

(i) with respect to the number and types of project experience designing a secure government facility.

(ii) with respect to the number and types of project experience to include Architectural, Mechanical, Electrical/MEP, Communications and Structural Upgrades In accordance with applicable specifications outlined in the Statement of Work.

(c) Subfactor 3 – Quality Control: This subfactor evaluates Offeror’s submitted quality control plan. Specifically, the adequacy of the Offeror’s key quality control staff and their approach to the management of the overall quality of the contract on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. It also evaluates the adequacy of the Offeror’s approach to quality control subcontractors. This document will incorporated by reference in the resulting contract.

(1) Measure of Merit: This subfactor will be considered acceptable if the Offeror’s proposal clearly and logically addresses and meets the minimum requirements specified below and within this solicitation. The Offeror will be required to provide their approach to hiring qualified key quality control staff. The standard is met when the quotation:

(i) demonstrates an effective and efficient quality management structure and processes that are integrated into the overall management approach and allows management of the contract requirements;

(ii) demonstrates ability to maintain an inspection system that is integrated into the overall management approach and meet the requirements of the statement of work;

and

(iii) demonstrates capacity to accomplish the work in the required time, complete project within the established time limits, meeting project dollar thresholds, and current workload.

(e) Subfactor 4 – Schedule Driver: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s submitted construction schedule. It also evaluates the adequacy of the Offeror’s approach to scheduling design and construction activities to meet the contract period of performance and if the Offeror has included a detailed schedule that clearly illustrates a plan to meet all delivery dates for design and construction.

(1) Measure of Merit: This subfactor will be considered acceptable if the Offeror’s proposal clearly and logically addresses and meets the minimum requirements for a detailed construction schedule that clearly illustrates a plan to meet all delivery milestones for design and construction. The standard is met when the quotation:

(i) identifies the definable features of work (DFOW) to a sufficient level to clearly indicate all aspects of the project including project setup, management, design, sitework, utilities, construction, equipment installation;

(ii) identifies proposed utility outages and road closures if necessary; and

(iii) identifies critical path elements in the schedule.

Past Performance Factors The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for inclusion into the agreement.

(a) Ratings: The past performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below:

Table 2. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown (see note below).

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance in accordance with RFO 15.202(c)(1). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”.

(b) Evaluation Process: The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the solicitation requirements. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided by the Offeror and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS);

System for Award Management (SAM), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(1) Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

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

(2) Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this solicitation may be considered). Consideration will be given to contract performance consisting of construction projects, to include, maintenance, repair, alteration, mechanical, electrical, heating/air conditioning, demolition, painting, paving, and earthwork each exceeding $100,000.00 utilizing at least 3 of the disciplines above ranging from new facility construction to site/utility work to facility renovation, with the recency timeframe shown above. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical Subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the Offeror, Subcontractor or Teaming Partner. Any past performance questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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

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

(c) Performance Quality Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the Offeror performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price factor (however, all assessments may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table 2. Past Performance Quality Ratings

Satisfactory (S) During the contract period, Offeror performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, Offeror took effective corrective action.

Unsatisfactory (U) During the contract period, Offeror performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

Not Available (N) Quality and/or performance information is not available.

Assigned Ratings As a result of the performance, relevancy, and quality ratings of the recent contracts evaluated, Offeror will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table 2).

NOTE: Teaming Agreements and Joint Ventures will be accepted in the Past Performance evaluation. However, if a Teaming Arrangement or Joint Venture is established, the eight contract limit applies to the Teaming Arrangement or Joint Venture together (8 contracts total).