Attachment A - Section L and SectionM.pdf

SECTION L

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

Proposals

The preferred method for proposals to be submitted in response to this solicitation is via e-mail to Brian.Wilkins@atf.gov.

Offers received after the closing date will be rejected.

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. 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. Also, the full text of a provision may be accessed electronically at these addresses:

http://www.acquisitions.gov

(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 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time (EST) on March 17, 2022 to Brian.Wilkins@ATF.gov or to the mailing address provided within the solicitation. ALL CONTRACTORS QUESTIONS ARE DUE BY March 7th, 2022; 5:00PM EST. NO QUESTIONS WILL BE ADDRESS AFTER THIS

DATE.

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

(a) Contractors may bid on one or more of the CLINs (contract line item numbers). A separate proposal should be submitted for each CLIN being applied for

(b) 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.

http://www.acquisitions.gov/ mailto:Brian.Wilkins@ATF.gov

(c) For the electronic submission, the offer/proposal shall be in uncompressed files submitted via email or as attachment.

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

(e) Information shall be confined to the appropriate section to facilitate independent evaluation. The technical proposal should be clear and concise, logically assembled and indexed and cross-indexed to applicable parts of the RFP as appropriate. Pages over the maximum-page limitation for any section will be excluded from evaluation. The page limits shall include any diagrams, figures, tables, or reference material.

(f) Contractors must complete the following clause - “ATF- 50 Limitations on Subcontracting under Small Business Set-Aside” on page 16 and 17 of the Solicitation.

Proposals submitted without completion of “ATF-50 Limitations on Subcontracting under Small Business Set-Aside” will not be considered eligible for award.

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 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 (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.

(c) Requirements

Section

Section/Tab Title

Page Limits

I

Cover Page 1

II Statement 1

III

Technical Proficiency

IV

Education and Certifications

V

Past Performance 3 Pages per Reference

VI

Price

3. CONTENT

All sections listed below MUST be broken out clearly within the contractor’s proposal.

3.1 Section I Cover Page – To include the following information:

3.1.1 Cover Page:

• RFP Title,

• Solicitation Number,

• CLIN number and title, for which they are applying,

• Contact Information (name, address, phone, email),

• DUNS number, and

• The statement “Individual Contractor Submission.”

3.2 Section II Statements:

• A statement agreeing to adhere to all Contract Requirements as stated in Section 3.0 (including all subsections) of this Statement of Work.

• A statement agreeing to adhere to all Assumptions and Constraints as stated in Section 4.0 (including all subsections) of this Statement of Work.

3.3 Section III Technical Proficiency on Statement of Work. Offers shall demonstrate the following:

• Provide a brief summary detailing an overview of the contractor’s experience, education, and training background and the benefits the contract can provide to ATF. Proposal should also address each numbered Contract Qualification Criteria as listed in the attachment for the specific CLIN for which you are applying as outlined in Section 3.1 of this Statement of Work.

3.4 Section IV Education and Certifications as listed in the Statement of Work. Offers shall demonstrate the following:

• The contractor shall provide a copy of his/her resume or professional curriculum vitae detailing qualifications that demonstrate the individual’s ability to execute the SOW requirements on the basis of strength of relevant education and depth and breadth of relevant training/experience.

Education and Certifications will include Qualifications (Experience, Education and Training) and Approach to Maintaining Subject Matter Currency.

3.5 Section V Past Performance

The contractor shall provide reference for a maximum of three (3) contracts/orders with the Federal Government and/or commercial customers that demonstrate recent and relevant past performance of similar scope, size and complexity of services identified. Recent is defined as within the last three (3) years. Relevant is defined as work similar in complexity, magnitude, and type of work describe in the Statement of Work.

Contractors are instructed to send requests for references to the referenced party with instructions that they, in turn, should send the information directly to the ATF Contracting Officer listed above. The contractor shall provide a detailed summary of the work performed for each past performance reference submitted. ATF reserves the right to interview each reference provided to verify project scope, dollar value and obtain additional past performance information.

Contractor shall provide the following information for each past performance references provided:

(a) Contract/Order Number

(b) Title of Program/Project.

(c) Scope

(d) Contract Type

(e) Period Performance

(f) Awarded Dollar Value

(g) Final, or Project Final, Dollar Value

(h) Original Delivery Schedule

(i) Final, or Projected Final, Delivery Schedule

(j) Organizational name (Government/Commercial Contracting Activity), Address, Telephone and Fax numbers, and e-mail address for the technical and contractual points of contact.

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

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluation recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. See FAR 15.305.

3.6 Section VI – Price

The offeror shall ensure that all information is presented in an organized fashion to allow ATF to understand the cost. The contract resulting from this solicitation shall be Firm-Fixed Price Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) contract. In order to assess price reasonableness and amount:

The offeror shall complete and provide a Full Day Rate and Half Day Rate (See Attachment 1 Pricing Table).

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.

4. NOTE:

(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 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. 15A00022R00000048.

(e) All items that are submitted to the Government based on this solicitation will not be returned to the contractor and will become property of the Government.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Any contractor (or member of its team and/or subcontractor) having a conflict of interest as defined under FAR Part 9.5 must identify the conflict as soon as it is known and provide a recommended mitigation plan. Mitigation plans are required whenever a competing contractor has had unequal access to non-public information regarding this requirement and/or competition, or has assisted the Government in defining the requirements or evaluation criteria.

SECTION M

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.

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

(f) 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. These technical factor ratings will be assigned to facilitate an overall technical rating for the proposal, which combined with the evaluated price, will be used to determine the proposal deemed to be most advantageous to the Government. The proposal price will be evaluated but no adjectival rating will be applied.

Basis for Award

The Government will award a contract to the responsible Offerors whose proposals are 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. Technical Proficiency

2. Education and Certifications

3. Past Performance

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

1. Technical Proficiency

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 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 will be assessed.

Technical Proficiency will be evaluated by assigning the following ratings:

RATING SYMBOL

Exceptional E The proposal contains numerous strengths and no weaknesses, indicating that the proposed effort will significantly benefit the government.

Good G The proposal contains numerous strengths and few minor weaknesses that can be easily corrected, indicating the proposed effort will benefit the government. Strengths offset weaknesses.

Satisfactory S Proposal meets the requirement, however, may contain some weaknesses that can be corrected without major revisions, indicating the proposed effort will meet the government’s requirements. Strengths do not offset weaknesses.

Unsatisfactory U The proposal fails to meet some or all of the standard for evaluation; needs a major revision to the proposal to meet the standard, or may be uncorrectable. Fails to meet the government’s requirements.

2. Education and Certifications

The Government will evaluate degree to which the Offeror’s proposed resume demonstrates the individual’s ability to execute SOW requirements on the bases of strength of relevant education and depth and breadth of relevant training/experience. Education and Certifications will include Qualifications (Experience, Education and Training) and Approach to Maintaining Subject Matter Currency. All qualifications must be met or exceeded in accordance to the Statement of Work.

Education and Certifications will be evaluated by assigning the following ratings:

RATING SYMBOL

Exceptional E The proposal contains numerous strengths and no weaknesses, indicating that the proposed effort will significantly benefit the government.

Good G The proposal contains numerous strengths and few minor weaknesses that can be easily corrected, indicating the proposed effort will benefit the government. Strengths offset weaknesses.

Satisfactory S Proposal meets the requirement, however, may contain some weaknesses that can be corrected without major revisions, indicating the proposed effort will meet the government’s requirements. Strengths do not offset weaknesses.

Unsatisfactory U The proposal fails to meet some or all of the standard for evaluation; needs a major revision to the proposal to meet the standard, or may be uncorrectable. Fails to meet the government’s requirements.

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 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 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.

Neutral No Past Performance

(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.

Neutral No Past Performance

(b) 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

Adjectival 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-Not Rated

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. The proposed labor skill mix associated with the proposed labor rates will be analyzed to determine if the prices proposed for the five years are reasonable, for the type of work proposed.

As the technical proposals approach equality, price will become more important in making the award determination. In the event that two or more quotations 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 quotation. It should be noted that award may be made to other than the lowest priced quotation 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 quotation, if the Government determines that a price premium is not warranted.