Attachment A - Section L and M.pdf

SECTION L

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

Proposals:

Proposals to be submitted in response to this solicitation is via e-mail to Brian.Wilkins@atf.gov.

All offers, whether received by U.S. mail or email, must be postmarked and received no later than the closing date specified in Block 8 of the SF 1449. Offers received after the closing date will be rejected.

Except as specifically provided in an order, all postage and fees related to the submission of information, including but not limited to forms, reports, supporting, supporting documentation, etc. shall be paid by the Contractor. The Government shall not be responsible for costs associated with proposal preparation

52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB

1998)

This solicitation incorporates one or more provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer (CO) will make the full text available. Be cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the Offeror and submitted with its proposal/offer. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the Offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its proposal/offer. Also, the full text of a provision may be accessed electronically at these addresses:

http://www.acquisitions.gov/far

(a) The Government may award without discussions with the offeror; therefore, the offeror is cautioned to examine the solicitation in its entirety and to ensure that its proposal is complete, containing all necessary information/all required documentation, in all respects. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and to permit the offeror to revise its proposal(s).

(b) The Offeror shall submit an electronically signed and dated offer, by 2:00 PM Eastern Standard Time (EST) on May 22, 2020 to Brian.Wilkins@ATF.gov or to the mailing address provided within the solicitation. All contractors questions are due by May 15, 2020, 2:00PM EST. No questions will be addressed after this date.

(c) Offers/Proposals received after the time and date specified for receipt will be considered LATE.

mailto:Brian.Wilkins@ATF.gov

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

(a) To be considered for selection, the Offeror must submit a complete response to this Request for Proposal (RFP) using the sequence and format provided herein. All pages must be identified with the Offeror’s name and Solicitation number.

(b) For the electronic submission, the offer/proposal shall be in uncompressed files submitted via email.

(c) The electronic version of the text shall be in Microsoft Word doc format or Adobe Acrobat Portable Data Format (PDF).

(d) Information shall be confined to the appropriate section to facilitate independent evaluation. The technical proposal should be clear and concise, logically assembled, numbered, indexed and cross-indexed to applicable parts of the Request for Proposal (RFP) as appropriate. The page limits shall include any diagrams, figures, tables, or reference material.

2. FORMAT

(a) Submissions. Submissions shall be on 8 ½” x 11” (with no fold-outs) white paper and printed only on one side of the paper. The text shall have 1” margins on all sides, be single-spaced; font style Times New Roman; font color black; and font size 12. Illustrations (e.g., graphics figures, graphs, and tables) shall be in portrait format with font colors other than black allowable and font sizes 12, 10, and 9 are considered acceptable. The Offeror’s company name (no logos), the date, solicitation number, section shall be included on each page of the proposal/offer (may be included in a header/footer). All pages of the proposal/offer shall be numbered, using a uniform-paragraph-numbering system. Page numbers, headers and footers may be outside the page margins, and are not bound by the font, color and point-size requirement.

(b) The Offeror shall present all information relevant to each factor in the appropriate section. The Offeror shall insert its company’s name in the filename. At the end of each section, the Offeror may include any “Exceptions” that they take with the requirements, constraints, and terms and conditions. Any exceptions taken shall clearly identify the RFP Section, paragraph, and requirement/objective, constraint, or terms and conditions to which exception is being made and include appropriate supporting rationale for each exception. The Government is not obligated to accept such exceptions to the RFP, and these may render the Offeror’s proposal unacceptable. Offerors must submit four separate volumes listed below:

(c) Requirements

Section

Section/Tab Title

Number of Hard Copies (if mailed)

Page Limits

I

Introduction (Table of Contents, Executive- Level Summary, Corporate Qualifications), ORCA Certification or other Certifications and Representations

II

Pass and Fail Criteria for Mandatory Factors Based on Statement of Work contractor Must Provide details

III

Key Personnel/Experience The Contractor shall describe the Key Personnel’s including experience and resume which demonstrates the individual’s ability to execute the SOW requirement

IV

Technical Approach

V

Past Performance

3 Pages per Reference

VI

Price

3. CONTENT

3.1 Section I – The Offeror is requested to provide the below information.

3.1.1 Introduction & Table of contents for easy reference.

3.1.2 Executive-Level Summary. Provide a letter formally transmitting the offer/proposal. Identify the name, address, e-mail address, telephone and facsimile transmission number of the person(s) who has the contractual authority and can be contacted concerning any questions about this offer/proposal. Also, include the following as attachments to the letter:

(a) A document containing the following information:

- Name, address, telephone number, facsimile number, e-mail address, and cage code of the contractor and of any corporate affiliate at which work is to be performed.

- The Offeror shall demonstrate its technical experience and past performance, in performing tasks similar to those identified in the Statement of Work (SOW).

3.1.3 Section I - ORCA Certification in accordance with FAR Part 52.212-3. This tab shall contain a completed copy of your company’s ORCA Certification or proper DUNS Number that will allow the government to download your ORCA information.

3.1.4 Section I - Exceptions/Alternatives (Terms and Conditions).

(a) Offerors are cautioned that they take exception to any Terms and Conditions of the solicitation at their own risk. The Government may, at its option, reject an offer/proposal which contains any such exceptions.

(b) Nonetheless, any exception taken by the Offeror, at its own risk, shall be identified in this tab. The Offeror shall clearly identify the paragraph and term or condition to which the exception is being made and include the appropriate rationale for any such exception.

(c) Suggested, optional wording changes (to include clarifications and addenda) to any terms and conditions of the solicitation shall be identified in this part. The Government may at its option accept or reject any such changes. If accepted, it may be necessary to amend the solicitation and to discuss the changes with other Offerors.

(d) If no exceptions are taken, the Offeror shall include the following statement in this part of the proposal: “[Name of Offeror] takes no exception to any terms and conditions of Solicitation No. 15A00020R00000048.

3.1.5 Section I Contractor must register under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) number 611310 within the Systems Award Management (SAM) database).

(a) When so required by FAR Part 44, the offeror's proposal shall identify all subcontracts/consultant arrangements proposed. Specifically, the following information shall be provided to the Contracting Officer:

(1) Company name of each subcontractor, or the individual name in the case of independent consultants;

(2) Names of each subcontractor corporate officers:

(3) Name of each subcontractor's key personnel for this contract effort, including each individual's level of effort; and

(4) Scope of work to be performed by each subcontractor/consultant.

(b) Throughout the term of this contract, the Contractor shall obtain prior written authorization from the Contracting Officer for any additions, deletions or changes in subcontract/consultant arrangement entered into for the purpose of performing this contract effort. The Contractor shall furnish the Contracting Officer with the above-specified items of information for any subcontract/consultant arrangement that the Contractor proposed subsequent to contract award.

(c) ATF reserves the right to request the contractor to terminate any subcontractors, individual subcontractor employees, subcontractor principals, or consultants, for malfeasance or other appropriate cause (e.g., theft, criminal record(s), ties to organized crime, etc.).

(d) The provisions of this clause do not preclude any requirements regarding subcontracts that may be set forth elsewhere in this solicitation/contract.

(e) Complete applicable blocks on the cover sheet, SF 1449. Indicate your DUNS number in Block 17a.

3.2 Section II - Pass and Fail Criteria for Mandatory Factors

MANDATORY FACTORS THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED ARE AS FOLLOWED:

The following two (2) evaluation factors will be assigned a Pass/Fail rating in order to determine responsiveness to the solicitation. Any offerors that do not respond to the two

(2) below factor(s), or receive a “fail” rating for either factor(s), will be eliminated from further consideration.

(1) All Courses all must be accredited as stated in the Statement of Work.

(2) Completion of the core courses, or their equivalent, as listed in the statement of work must lead to the issuance of a graduate certificate in explosives engineering or explosives technology. The program must be able to award the certificate at either the graduate or undergraduate level, depending on the individual student’s level of education.

If the offeror receives a Pass rating for the above factors then Responses will be evaluated on the basis of the following evaluation factors:

3.3 Section II Criteria for Key Personnel/Experience as listed in the Statement of Work.

Offers shall demonstrate the following:

3.3.1 Key Personnel/Experience

Offerors shall submit resumes of proposed key personnel/experience (Professor, Assistant Professor, Associates Professor, Adjunct Professor and Graduate Teaching Assistant), which must include either a Letter of Intent or a signed resume by the key personnel and the ontractor that demonstrates the individual’s ability to execute the SOW requirements on base of strength of relevant education and training, depth and breadth of relevant experience

Each resume, at a minimum, shall contain the following information:

Company: Current company affiliation and location Education: Degree(s), School, location of School, Major, and Year of Graduation Job Title: Current & Planned Job Title Professional Experience/Qualifications: Brief summary of experience and training Security Clearance: Current security clearance (if applicable)

3.4 Section III Criteria for Technical Approach on Statement of Work. Offers shall demonstrate the following:

3.4.1 Technical Approach:

The contractor shall describe its approach and the technical approach for achieving the Statement of Work. The contractor’s technical approach will address how your company will provide the required services. The response must be clear, concise, and specific. Statements that your company, “understands the requirement and will comply” by themselves are not satisfactory. The proposal shall include a detailed description of supplies and services to be provided which addresses in-depth how the offeror plans to meet the requirement.

3.5 Section IV – Past Performance

3.5.1 The Offeror shall provide no more than (3) references for Contracts/Orders with the Federal Government and/or commercial customers that demonstrate recent and relevant past performance of similar scope, size and complexity of the services identified in the Statement of Work. Recent is defined as within the last three years. Relevant is defined as work similar in complexity, magnitude, and type of work describe in the Statement of Work.

3.5.2 The government may consider the past performance of other companies when they are team members, affiliates, or significant subcontractors, who will perform some aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the acquisition; however, the offeror must clearly explain how these other companies will be significantly involved in the proposed contract. The Offeror shall provide a detailed summary of the work performed for each past performance reference submitted. Where possible, ATF intends to interview each reference provided to verify project scope, dollar value and obtain additional past performance information. The Solicitation Number is already identified on the past performance surveys.

3.5.3 The Offeror shall provide telephone, fax, and email for the points of contact for the technical and contractual personnel with each referenced project as well as a description of the referenced contracts/task orders.

3.5.4 Contract Descriptions. The description of each contract and subcontract shall include the following information in the task order listed:

(a) Contract number.

(b) Title of Program/Project.

(c) Contract Type.

(d) Period of performance.

(e) Awarded price.

(f) Final or projected final, price.

(g) Original delivery schedule.

(h) Final or projected final, delivery schedule

(i) Government/Commercial Contracting activity, address, telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail address.

3.5.5 The Government may also consider information obtained through other sources. Past Performance information will be utilized to determine the quality of the contractor’s past performance as it relates to the probability of success of the required effort. In this section, the Offeror will include demonstrated and relevant corporate experience, including subcontractors and teaming partners, in performing projects requiring the type of services solicited.

3.5.6 If the contractor has no past performance, it will be evaluated as Neutral.

3.6 Section V – Price

3.6.1 The Offeror shall provide complete pricing see ATTACHMENT B – PRICING TABLE.

3.6.2 Though price is not rated, price reasonableness will be determined by the contracting officer.

Issuance of this solicitation does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government. This request does not commit the Government to pay for costs incurred in the submission of a proposal or for any other costs incurred prior to the execution of a formal contract unless specifically authorized in writing by the Contracting Officer. Attention is directed to the fact that a Contracting Officer is the only individual who can legally commit or obligate the Government to the expenditure of public funds should a contract result by reason of a response to this request for proposal.

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

General:

(a) The Government is conducting this source selection in accordance with the procedures contained in FAR Part 12, 13, and 13.5.

(b) The Government intends to award a single Blanket Purchase Agreement

(BPA) contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal meets the Government’s requirements and whose technical proposal and price represent the best value to the Government. The Government will conduct the best value analysis using the evaluation factors listed in Section M. In performing its best value analysis, the Government will compare any relevant differences among the evaluated proposals to determine which proposal offers the overall best value. This effort will include comparing the strengths, weaknesses and risks associated with each offer.

(c) The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with the Offerors. Therefore, the initial proposal should contain the Offerors' best terms from a technical and cost/price standpoint.

(d) When conducting the evaluation, the Government may use data included by Offerors in their proposals, as well as data obtained from other sources. Each Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the information provided is thorough, accurate, and complete.

(d) The Offeror must clearly demonstrate that all requirements of the SOLICITATION are met. The Offeror must also address all information requirements of the Solicitation.

(e) The evaluation process will be carried out so as to assess how advantageous the contractor’s proposal is in reference to the technical evaluation factors. One of several stated adjectival ratings will be assigned in order to express judgment on each technical evaluation factor. An Overall rating for each offeror will be determined based on all the technical factors listed in Section M of this solicitation and then combined with the evaluated price will allow the Government to deemed which proposal is the most advantageous for the Government. The proposal price will be evaluated but no adjectival rating will be applied

Mandatory Factors (Pass or Fail)

The contractor’s proposal will be evaluated with respect to the Mandatory Factors.

Mandatory factors will be assigned a Pass/Fail rating to determine responsiveness to the solicitation. Any offerors that omit a mandatory factor or fail to affirm a mandatory factor, will be eliminated from competition and will not be considered for award.

The offeror must receive a passing rating for both Mandatory Factors before any Key Personnel/Experience, Technical Approach, Past Performance or Price are evaluated.

The following two (2) evaluation factors will be assigned a Pass/Fail rating in order to determine whether the offeror is eligible for award. Any offerors that do not respond to the two (2) below factor(s), or receive a “fail” rating for either factor(s), will be eliminated from further consideration.

(1) All Courses all must be accredited as stated in the Statement of Work.

(2) Courses must lead to the issuance of a graduate certificate in explosives engineering or explosives technology. The program must be able to award the certificate at either the graduate or undergraduate level, depending on the individual student’s level of education.

If the offeror receives a Pass rating for the above mandatory factors then Responses will be evaluated on the basis of the following evaluation factors:

The evaluation of proposals will be based on the following factors, which are listed in descending order of importance: (1) Key Personnel/Experience, (2) Technical Approach,

(3) Past Performance, and (4) Price.

Basis for Award

The Government will award a contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is the most advantageous to the Government, price and non-price factors considered. The evaluation of proposals will be based on the following factors, which are listed in descending order of importance:

Order of Importance:

1. Key Personnel/Experience

2. Technical Approach

3. Past Performance

4. Price

Key Personnel/Experience, Technical Approach and Past Performance are in descending order of relative importance (Key Personnel/Experience is more important than Technical Approach which is more important Past Performance). Key Personnel/Experience, Technical Approach and Past Performance (when combined) are significantly more important than Price, which is not rated. As the technical proposals approach equality, price will become more important in making the award determination. In the event that two or more proposals are determined not to have any substantial technical differences (i.e. are technically equivalent), award may be made to the lower priced proposal. It should be noted that award may be made to other than the lowest priced proposal if the Government determines that a price premium is warranted due to technical merit. The Government may also award to other than the highest technically rated proposal, if the Government determines that a price premium is not warranted.

1. Key Personnel /Experience

Key Personnel/Experience: The Government will evaluate degree to which the Offeror’s proposed key personnel/experience (Professor, Assistant Professor, Associates Professor, Adjunct Professor and Graduate Teaching Assistant) resume demonstrates the individual’s ability to execute SOW requirements on the bases of strength of relevant education and training, depth and breadth of relevant experience. Key Personnel/Experience will include Qualifications (Experience, Education and Training).

All experience and qualifications must be met or exceeded in accordance to the Statement of Work.

2. Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror effectively demonstrates knowledge, understanding and technical ability to successfully perform and manage the requirements of the Statement of Work. Additionally, the Government will evaluate the appropriateness, soundness and reasonableness of the Offeror’s problem resolution, logistic considerations, corporate commitment to achieve the overall project objectives, and methodology for providing resource support.

Key Personnel/Experience, Technical Approach will be evaluated qualitatively by assigning the following ratings:

Rating Description

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on CONTRACT performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is not awardable.

Evaluation Standard Definitions

Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness

A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or combination of significant weaknesses in proposal that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Risks The potential for unsuccessful contractor performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost (not applicable to firm-fixed price contracts) for degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The evaluation process will be carried out so as to objectively judge how advantageous the proposal is in reference to the technical evaluation factors outlined in the solicitation Section M.

One of several stated adjectival ratings (e.g., outstanding, good, etc.) will be assigned in order to express judgment on each major evaluation factor except for price. These ratings will be assigned to facilitate a final rating so that proposal can be ranked in order of preference deemed to be most advantageous to the Government.

Proposal

It is the intent of this evaluation to make award on the initial proposal submitted in response to the solicitation. Past performance shall be a criterion and shall be used in the evaluation process.

The plan for evaluating and assigning ratings for technical evaluation is outlined below.

The Technical Evaluator must document the rationale for the ratings in Word doc. format using a short synopsis of all of the factors for each proposal. An Evaluation sheet will be provided for each member to ensure that all elements of the evaluations are complete, and for recording the results of their reviews.

3. Past Performance

The quality of the contractor’s recent and relevant past performance will be evaluated to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Government will first evaluate the submitted references to determine the relevancy and recentness of the past performance information. This evaluation will be based on the degree to which the contract descriptions, Past and Present Performance Survey, and other past performance information demonstrates relevant/recent experience compared to the requirements of this solicitation in terms of similar size, scope, and complexity. Next, the Government will evaluate the degree to which the performance of those efforts demonstrates an overall performance and quality record that supports an expectation of successful achievement of the solicitation requirements. The Government may use the information provided by the contractor in their proposal submission, information in both Government and commercial databases and other information available as ATF determines is reasonable.

If the contractor has no past performance, it will be rated as Neutral. The government may determine that is not in its best interests to award to an offeror who has neutral rating.

The Past Performance factor will be rated as follows:

(a) Recency: Recent is defined as contract performance within the past three years. The following ratings will be used for Past Performance Recency:

Rating Definition Recent Contract Performance occurred within the past three years from the date proposals are due.

Not Recent Contract Performance did not occur within the past three years from the date proposals are due.

(b) Relevancy: Relevancy includes, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming. The following ratings will be used for Past Performance Relevancy:

Rating Definition Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

(c) Performance Confidence Assessment: For past performance contract references determined to be both recent and relevant, the Government will evaluate the degree to which the performance of those efforts demonstrates an overall performance and quality record that supports an expectation of successful achievement of the solicitation requirements by assigning a performance confidence assessment rating as follows:

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.

4. Price

In awarding the proposed contract, ATF will select a contractor who presents the overall best value to the Government, considering the technical merit of the contractor’s proposal and its evaluated price. ATF will use the factors above to evaluate the proposal.

As the technical proposals approach equality, price will become more important in making the award determination. In the event that two or more proposals are determined not to have any substantial technical differences (i.e. are technically equivalent), the Government will make an assessment through a trade-off analysis and other analytic means that involve the evaluation of superior technical capability versus the added cost. Based on Best Value, award may be made to the lower priced proposal. It should be noted that award may be made to other than the lowest priced proposal if the Government determines that a price premium is warranted due to technical merit. The Government may also award to other than the highest technically rated proposal, if the Government determines that a price premium is not warranted.