Attachment 6 Section L and M.pdf

FA4528-24-R-0011

Attachment 6

SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR QUOTERS

A. 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, and technical requirements. 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 (3) separate parts, Part I - Technical Proposal, Part II - Past Performance, and Part III - Price Proposal. Evaluation will be made in accordance with section M of this solicitation.

B. The Contracting Officer (CO) has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the CO will review this determination and if, in the CO’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the CO to determine the reasonableness of the price.

C. Specific Instructions:

PART I - FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL - Limited to no more than fifteen (15) pages. Technical Proposals will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis by sub-factors.

a. Subfactor 1: Organizational Structure

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s organizational structure identifying all key personnel with a description of their work experience relating to projects similar in scope to those expected to perform work with this project with experience in commercial and institutional building construction projects, renovations, alterations and repair, etc. with a minimum value of $500K.

b. Subfactor 2: Surge Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s surge plan and how well they manage surges in multiple work sites on separate task orders concurrently without causing undue delay of completion of these multiple task orders. The plan shall include sourcing for staffing and equipment during a surge.

PART II – FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE - Past Performance will be rated using a confidence assessment based on the overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance efforts.

a. A Past Performance Information Form (PPIF), Attachment 4, is provided with the solicitation for offerors to send to references of their choice. PPIF references who have returned the forms will be used in the past performance evaluation. Please note that the PPIF will only be accepted if it is received directly from the reference, and the PPIF must also be received by the offer due date and time, Central Time (CT), as annotated in the solicitation SF1442 block 13. Once submitted, the information contained therein shall be considered sensitive and shall not be released to the offeror. PPIFs are to be sent directly to:

Attn: Scott Stauffer and SrA Francesco Haydo, FA4528-24-R-0011 165 Missile Ave, Minot AFB, ND. 58705

-OR-

Scott.stauffer@us.af.mil and francesco.haydo@us.af.mil

b. The US Government will consider and evaluate offeror’s past performance information, to include the

PPIFs, which are deemed recent and relevant for the requirements of this RFP in accordance with section M of this solicitation. The Government will also use information submitted by the offeror and other sources such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources to assess performance.

PART III - FACTOR 3: PRICE PROPOSAL

a. Complete blocks 14 through 20C of the RFP Section A, SF 1442. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in RFP Sections A through K. These sections constitute the model contract.

b. Insert proposed coefficients in Attachment 7 – Price Schedule Coefficients. Complete for base year and all option years.

c. Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections I through K. Section K shall be returned in its entirety. For Sections F through I, the offeror shall submit only those pages that require a fill-in.

d. Provide a proposal for the initial Task Order Seed Project – Building 445, Office Renovation (see Attachment 8 Seed Offeror Schedule and Attachment 9 Seed Statement of Work (SoW)/Drawings) using pricing from Attachment 7 Price Schedule Coefficients and utilizing the cost estimating software from the requirements in Attachment 9 Statement of Work, section 4.7.

e. Data beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted. All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the Price Proposal (Part III). Under no circumstances shall this data and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

f. Other than certified cost or pricing data may be requested by the Government.

D. General Information:

1. Format for proposal parts I, II, and III shall be as follows:

a. The proposals will be 8 1/2” x 11” paper or standard A4 paper, except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams, which may not exceed 11” x 17”. All tables, charts, graphs, figures, etc., must be legible.

b. A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information.

c. Typing shall not be less than 10 point.

d. Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are not desired or required.

e. Electronic Submission – In accordance with FAR 52.215-1 – Instructions to Offerors, emailed proposals will be accepted. Emailed proposals must be sent to scott.stauffer@us.af.mil and francesco.haydo@us.af.mil. Note email size must not exceed 10 mb. If the proposal is more than 10 mb, please submit as email 1 of 2, etc. Format must be a Word Document, PDF, or Excel sheet. The offeror must request and obtain an acknowledgement of receipt for electronic submission.

f. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), if issued. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the Ens to offerors or on the EN form itself. Each page containing proprietary information should be so marked.

g. Each page of the offeror’s proposal and any EN responses should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

2. Additional Documentation

a. A letter of authorization for the Contracting Officer to verify offeror’s financial responsibility

(Attachment 5). Include name, address and phone numbers for financial institutions to include points of contact.

b. Acknowledgement of all amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the SF 30 (amendment form).

3. All contractors’ questions in response to this solicitation must be emailed to scott.stauffer@us.af.mil and

Francisco.haydo@us.af.mil no later than 10:00 AM CST, 17 Sep 2024. The US Government will not be held responsible for answering any questions after this time.

4. This section provides general guidance for preparing proposals. Offeror’s proposals must include all data and information requested by this solicitation and must be submitted and conducted in strict accordance with these instructions. Non-conformance with the specific organization, content, and page limitations may result in misevaluation of proposals, or depending on the magnitude of the non-conformance, the proposals may be eliminated from further consideration. The proposal must be completed and returned NLT the offer due date and time specified in block 13 of the solicitation SF1442. Send proposals to:

5 CONS/PKA-C

Attn: Scott Stauffer and SrA Francesco Haydo, FA4528-24-R-0011 165 Missile Ave.

Minot AFB, ND 58705-5027 Or E-Mailed to: scott.stauffer@us.af.mil AND francesco.haydo@us.af.mil

5. Notice to Offerors: Funds are not presently available for this effort. Therefore, proposal acceptance period must be valid through 31 December 2024. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available. The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an offeror for any costs.

6. Site Visit Information:

a. A pre-proposal site visit will be conducted as specified in FAR 52.236-27 Alternate 1. The date and time of the site visit is 10 Sep 2024 at 9:00 AM CST.

b. Participants will meet at Bldg. 165, 5th Contracting Squadron, Minot AFB, ND for the purpose of reviewing the work site and submitting questions regarding this solicitation. For those interested parties that do not have base passes, you must arrive at the Visitors Center (located at the main gate) no later than 30 minutes prior to the start of the site visit. This will allow time to obtain a temporary pass from the Visitors Center and to have vehicles searched before entering the installation. Each individual must hand-carry and submit to the Visitors Center his or her driver’s license, vehicle registration, and current proof of insurance to receive a temporary base pass. For either the site visit, delivery of commodities, or submission of proposals, all personnel requesting access to Minot Air Force Base must possess a valid State or Government picture identification card that is REAL ID Act compliant.

c. IMPORTANT: Please send an email to SrA Francesco Haydo at francesco.haydo@us.af.mil and Mr.

Scott Stauffer at scott.stauffer@us.af.mil not later than 11:00 AM, 5 Sep 2024 for those individuals who will be attending the site visit.

7. Offerors should allow sufficient time to arrive and submit the proposals to the Contracting Office prior to the closing time. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with the provisions established in FAR

15.208 “Late Submission, Modifications, and Withdrawals of Proposals”. If gate access is not granted, please contact the CO immediately. The contractors are responsible for coordinating and processing gate pass requests in a timely manner. The USAF shall not be held accountable. The USAF shall not be responsible for delays due to in-processing or out-processing the base.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. SOURCE SELECTION

1. Basis for Contract Award: This is a subjective tradeoff source selection in which competing offerors’ technical capability and past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations with past performance being significantly more important than technical, IAW FAR 15.101-1(b)(2). The source selection will be conducted in accordance with Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Department of Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at www.acquisition.gov. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as indicated in Paragraph 5. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the SABER IDIQ at Minot AFB.

3. Discussions: The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or opportunity for proposal revisions. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. Offerors may be required to respond with their FPR within 24 hours. 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 re-evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. If the Government elects to open discussions, the competitive range may or may not include proposals rated as “Unacceptable” at the sole discretion of the Government. A competitive range, if required, may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

4. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

5. Proposal Evaluation Approach:

a. Step 1: Evaluate all proposals for timeliness and completeness.

b. Step 2: Evaluate all timely/complete proposals for technical acceptability. Concurrently, the

Government will assess past performance on the confidence scale as described in paragraph 3.

Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor below for each offeror.

c. Step 3: Evaluate seed project proposals and coefficients to determine whether price is fair and reasonable

(IAW FAR 15.402).

d. Step 4: At this time, an integrated assessment will be made on those proposals rated technically acceptable, with past performance confidence assessment ratings of substantial, satisfactory, or unknown (neutral), and pricing determined to be fair and reasonable based on competition of all selection criteria.

e. Step 5: If, anytime during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to ENs and the FPR will be considered in the source selection decision.

f. Step 6: The Source Selection Evaluation Board will compile a Source Selection Decision Document for the Source Selection Authority to assess the integrated best value to the Government and upon contract clearance, select the successful offeror.

6. Responsibility: In addition to the evaluation factors noted above, the offeror must be determined responsible according to the standards in FAR Subpart 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors: The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror that provides the best value to the Government determined by using a Subjective Tradeoff as outlined in paragraph A.1. The proposals will be rated against the following factors and subfactors described below with technical capability and past performance history being evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations with past performance being significantly more important than technical.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Organizational Structure Subfactor 2: Surge Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2. Factor 1 - Technical Factor: 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. Offerors that fail to clearly address any of the following requirements may receive an Unacceptable rating for a subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

Table 1 - Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation, with a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation and/or there is a high risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

*Low risk has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

*Moderate risk can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Organizational Structure

DESCRIPTION: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s organizational structure identifying all key personnel with a description of their work experience relating to projects similar in scope to those expected to perform work with this project with experience in commercial and institutional building construction projects, renovations, alterations and repair, etc. with a minimum value of $500K.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal clearly identifies the individuals (management and supervisors) to include the company’s corporate management specifically used for this project with the minimum number of years identified as follows: Contract Manager (CM) 5 years of related experience; Quality Control Manager (QCM) 3 years; Project Superintendent (PS) 2 years; and Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) 5 years of continuous construction industry safety experience. Provide information as directed in Attachment 1 - Statement of Work along with the individual’s name, title, duty, years of experience related to projects of similar size and scope.

Subfactor 2: Surge Plan

DESCRIPTION: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s surge plan.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal provides how they will manage surges in multiple work sites on separate task orders concurrently without causing undue delay of completion of these multiple task orders. The plan shall include sourcing for staffing and equipment during a surge.

3. Factor 2 - Past Performance Factor: There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). All three aspects must be considered for each of the contracts or requirements evaluated. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

The Contracting Officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on

(1) Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and any Government integrity reports/records/terminations, (2) the PPIFs (Attachment 4) provided directly from references only, (3) CO knowledge, and (4) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor or successor companies, key personnel, joint ventures, and teaming arrangements that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.

Recency Assessment: References and other data will first be evaluated for recency. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or have been completed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy Assessment: Recent references will be given a relevancy rating per the table below. Relevant past performance demonstrates construction experience in commercial and institutional building construction projects, renovations, alterations and repair, etc. with a total contract dollar value of at least $500,000.00 and having similar complexity and function, utilizing trades relevant to those required by this solicitation. 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 prime, teaming partner, or joint venture. The PPIFs and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. Higher relevancy will be assigned for contracts that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, for which that Offeror is proposing. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government will only evaluate the 10 most current efforts that are deemed recent and relevant for each offeror. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

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.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to supply the requirements that meet users’ needs, based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Performance Confidence Assessments. In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (See FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In this case, the offeror’s past performance in unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

An Offeror’s overall confidence assessment will be impacted by past performance findings to include the amount and type of work proposed to be performed by each entity of the Offeror’s team. More recent performance or more relevant past performance may have greater impact on the performance confidence assessment. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the IDIQ, the resulting performance confidence assessment is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of Contractor performance and the resulting confidence level for work under this requirement. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessment ratings described in the table detailed below.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Rating Description

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.

*Note: A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

Teaming arrangements are characterized by two or more business entities that are working together under the representation of one of the existing business entities for the duration of a contract. A teaming arrangement is not a formal merger of two or more business entities. The Government recognizes the validity and integrity of teaming arrangements as detailed in FAR 9.6. All offerors are encouraged to review FAR 9.6 to acquaint themselves with its details. Since the Government can only determine the responsibility of the prime contractor per FAR 9.604(b), IAW FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, offerors must identify in their offer any teaming arrangement to be considered and completely identify the relationships/responsibilities of the teaming members. Joint ventures are characterized as two or more business entities that have been merged to create one business entity with equal responsibility during the course of the contract.

4. Factor 3 - Price/Coefficient Factor: Offerors whose proposed coefficients are determined to be unreasonable or unbalanced may not be considered for award.

a. The offeror’s coefficient proposal, as indicated on Attachment 7 – Offeror Price Schedule, will be evaluated for award purposes based upon the total coefficient proposed multiplied by the estimated value for the requirement. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated for evaluation purposes only and used to assist in determining the best value to the Government. The TEP is calculated by adding together the base and 4 option years as well as the 6-month extension period. The Government will rank all offers by the calculated TEP.

b. Reasonableness: The offeror’s coefficient proposal (Attachment 7) will be evaluated to ensure fair and reasonable. A price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404. Comparison of the proposed prices among offeror’s in response to the solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

c. Balance: Offers will be analyzed to determine if prices are unbalanced per FAR 15.404-1(g).

Unbalanced pricing exists where prices of one or more line items are significantly overstated or understated, despite an acceptable TEP. Offers may be rejected if it is determined there is a lack of balance in the offer that poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable

d. The Option to Extend Services Clause 52.217-8 will also be evaluated for the Offerors’ proposed coefficients. Clause 52.217-8 will be added/calculated to the offeror’s coefficient proposal by utilizing the proposed coefficients from the final option year. Coefficients would remain unchanged. In addition, if the option is exercised after award, the actual coefficients used in the extension will be the coefficients from the prior option year. Offerors are required to insert coefficients for the base and option CLINs only. Offerors shall not submit coefficients for the potential 6-month extension.

e. Offerors will provide pricing and return a proposal on the seed project (Attachments 8).

f. The Contracting Officer has determined there is a probability of adequate competition in this acquisition. If at any time during this competition the Contracting Officer determines that adequate competition does not exist, offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness of proposed coefficients.

5. Subjective Tradeoff.

a. The SSA shall select the source whose proposal offers the best value to the Government in accordance with established criteria herein. This Subjective Tradeoff decision will be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria, considering recommendations and minority opinions. The source selection decision reflects the integrated, comparative assessment and includes the rationale for any business judgments/tradeoffs made including benefits associated with additional costs.

b. If the lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable offer is judged to have a “Substantial

Confidence” performance confidence assessment, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

c. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer if the lowest priced offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of other than “Substantial Confidence”. In that event, the Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

d. 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.