Combo Synopsis Solicitation FA706022R0024.pdf

Combo Synopsis/Solicitation September 2022 75th Anniversary Tattoo Production Support

Audi Field, Washington D.C.

FA706022R0024

This is a combined solicitation/synopsis for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12, 13, and 15 as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued.

This solicitation is issued as a Request for Proposal (RFP), solicitation number FA706022R0024, in accordance with provisions and clauses effective in Federal Acquisition Cirular (FAC) 2022-06, effective May 26, 2022.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 711320 – Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports and Similar Events without Facilities, and the small business size standard is $19,500,000.00. The proposed acquisition is set aside as a 100% small business set-aside. All small businesses are encouraged to participate by submitting proposals. Offerors shall comply with all instructions contained in FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (Addendum).

Points of Contact:

Primary: Christopher Finik, Contract Specialist - christopher.finik@us.af.mil Alternate: Diane Feguer, Contracting Officer - diane.feguer@us.af.mil

Description of Requirement: The service being procured are production support for the September 2022 75th Anniversary Tattoo Event that is being held at Audi Field in Washington, D.C. Required support include staging, sound, video, power, pyrotechnics, lighting, rigging, logistical support, planning deliverables, adequately trained and qualified labors, and all equipment and supplies. The period of performance is tentatively scheduled for 1 Aug 22 – 16 Sept 22.

Site Visit: A site visit will be held for this requirement on 15 June 2022 at Audi Field at 1300. Point of contact and access instructions will be provided upon request of the interested offeror. Please contact the POCs above via email NLT 10 June 2022.

Request for Information: All questions regarding this RFP and related documents must be submitted via email NLT 24 June 2022 at 1600hrs EST to the POCs above. The government will answer all questions submitted and will post as an amendment to the RFP. Questions received after this date will not be accepted.

Accepted Form of Submission: The accepted form of submission for responses to this RFP is via email to the POCs listed above.

Please return RFP not later than 5 July 2022 by 1600hrs EST. Late offers will not be accepted.

Attachments: Attachment 1) Statement of Work Attachment 2) Applicable Clauses and Provisions Attachment 3) Past/Present Experience Sheet Attachment 4) Brand Name Justification

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1

FAR Clause 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Service (Nov 2021), is hereby tailored in accordance with the following:

(b) is here by tailored to read as follows:

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

1. The Government intend to award a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) purchase order. This requirement is being solicited as a Request for Proposal (RFP), submission of a proposal does not guarantee receipt of an award.

2. In order to be considered for award, the above mentioned site visit must have been attended and all proposals must be received not later than 5 July 2022, 16:00hrs (EST). Offers must be sent via e-mail to christopher.finik@us.af.mil and diane.feguer@us.af.mil.

3. To be awarded a contract with the United States Air Force, and/or the United States Government, all vendors must have a UEI number, a CAGE code, and be Systems for Awards Management (SAM) registered.

4. In order to be considered for award, the offeror’s proposal must be complicate with the requirements of this RFP and the Statement of Work (SOW), as well as Government standards and regulations pertaining to the SOW.

5. The proposal shall contain the following:

1) Technical Proposal (Factor 1): The offeror shall submit a technical proposal, limited to a total of 10 pages, with the following sub-factors:

Sub-factor 1: Production Requirements

The offeror shall address/acknowledge each requirement of the SOW. This should be specific, detailed, and complete to clearly demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements to accomplish the effort. The offoror shall provide a clear and concise description of how the offeror plans to meet or exceed the requirements of this solicitation and the SOW.

Sub-factor 2: Past/Present Experience

The offeror shall submit evidence of at least 20 successful productions of equivalent scale (scale meaning same/similar production elements and audience size (5,000 guests)) as identified in the SOW during the last ten (10) years from the issuance date of the solicitation. Submit this information on Attachment 3: Past/Present Experience Sheet.

mailto:christopher.finik@us.af.mil mailto:diane.feguer@us.af.mil

2) Past Performance (Factor 2): Offerors shall reference up to a total of (3) three recent (within the past (10) years from the issuance date of the solicitation) and relevant (where the offeror is/was responsible for providing production services as descripted in the SOW) productions, for 5,000 guests in which they operated as a prime contractor.

3) Price Proposal (Factor 3): The offeror shall submit a single price to provide all required services in accordance with the SOW. The proposed price should be rounded out to two (2) decimal places. The extended amount must equal the whole dollar unit price multiplied by the number of units. Please incorporate pricing in technical proposal. The contract line item number (CLIN) structure is as follows:

CLIN Description Qty Unit of Issue

Price Extended Price

0001 September 2022 Tattoo Production Support

1 Lot $$ $$

(e) is hereby tailored to read as follows: Multiple pricing offers will NOT be accepted

(End of Addendum)

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

FAR Clause 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021), is hereby tailored in accordance with the following:

(a)

Basis for Contract Award: The Government will award a firm-fixed price purchase order, resulting from this solicitation, the responsible offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, price, technical capability, and past performance will be considered.

The Government may award without discussion, and reserves the right to hold discussions at any point, if deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer. Failure to meet the requirements of the instructions in FAR clause 52.212-1 may result in an offer being deemed unacceptable.

Factor ratings and assessments will focus on each proposal’s technical, past performance, and price analysis findings. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Contracting Officer determines that the technical superiority and/or superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. The Contracting Officer bases the award decision on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors. While the Government evaluation team and the Contracting Officer will strive for maximum objectivity, evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgement is implicit throughout the entire process.

The Contracting Officer is not responsible for locating or obtaining any information not identified in the offer. If an offer does not comply with every requirement, that offer will not be technically acceptable, and therefore will not be considered.

Evaluation Methodology: Proposals will be evaluated using three factors which are as follows: (1) Technical Capability, (2) Past Performance, and (3) Price. Technical capability is most important and somewhat more important than past performance and price. Past performance is more important than price. Price is the least important. Furthermore, there are two sub-factors (A) Production Requirements and (B) Past/Present Experience. All sub-factors are equally important. The greater the equality of technical proposals, the more important past performance and price become in selected the best value for the Government.

The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price. Price is not expected to be the most significant factor in the selection of an offeror for this solicitation. When competing proposals are evaluated and determined to be equal, total price and other price factors would become the most significant factor. Prices will be evaluated to determine if the proposed price is reasonable and to assess the offeror’s understanding of the solicitation. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between technical and price must be clearly explained in the price proposal. For example, if unique and innovative approaches are the basis for an abnormally high or low priced estimate, the nature of these approaches and their impact on price must be completely documented. The burden of proof of price credibility rests solely with the offeror. Price proposals will not be rated or scored.

Evaluation Factors:

Factor 1: Technical Capability

The technical capability sub-factors shall receive a technical rating of “Outstanding”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal, or “Unacceptable” with consideration of any strengths, weaknesses or deficiencies. Technical ratings will be assessed at the sub-factor level and overall factor-level rating will not be assigned. In order to be eligible for award, offerors are required to meet all aspects of the technical sub-factors and receive at least an “Acceptable” Technical Rating.

Technical Rating. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirements and the degree to which the offeror’s proposal meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements. If an offeror’s proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, this is a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal resulting in an “Unacceptable” rating and the proposal is not awardable.

Strength is 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 means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have 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

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Proposal contains a weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be required to overcome difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal contains one or more deficiencies or weaknesses that increase the risk of unsuccessful performance.

The following are the Technical Capability Sub-factors:

Sub-factor 1: Production Requirements The offeror shall address/acknowledge each requirement of the SOW. This should be specific, detailed, and complete to clearly demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements to accomplish the effort. The offoror shall provide a clear and concise description of how the offeror plans to meet or exceed the requirements of this solicitation and the SOW.

Sub-factor 2: Past/Present Experience The offeror shall submit evidence of at least 20 successful productions of equivalent scale (scale) meaning same/similar production elements and audience size (5,000 guests)) as identified in the SOW during the last ten (10) years from the issuance date of the solicitation.

Factor 2: Past Performance

The Government will evaluate each past performance reference in order to measure the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contract efforts.

The performance confidence assessment will be assessed at an overall factor level after evaluating all of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to Factor 1, Technical Capability experiences and the SOW. Past performance will be evaluated by examining a total of (3) references determined by the Government to be the most recent and relevant in relation to this requirement and the assigned NAICS code 711320.

The Government will evaluate relevancy and assign a relevancy rating for each recent contract reference.

In accordance with the chart below, if a reference is determined to be not relevant, the Government may not further evaluate the reference.

Very Relevant Effectively managed a production services by furnishing all labor, supervision, management, tools, materials, equipment, deliverables, transportation, incidental engineering, and other items necessary to fulfill the requirements of an outdoor event for at least 550 guests.

Somewhat Relevant

Effectively managed production services of equivalent scale or similar production services by furnishing or teaming with a partner who furnished all labor, supervision, management, tools, materials, equipment, deliverables, transportation, incidental engineering, and other items necessary to fulfill the requirements of an outdoor event for at least 550 guests.

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

The Government will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all recent and relevant performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to this proposed effort. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of its performance. The Government may confirm past and present performance data identified by offerors in the proposals, and may obtain additional performance data from other sources. Past performance information may be obtained through, but not limited to, the following: 1) Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); 2) Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); 3) Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) and 4) Interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers.

Performance Confidence Assessment. The rating for the Past Performance factor is based on evaluation of the offeror’s past performance data, resulting in an overall performance confidence assessment. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is recent and relevant to the Technical Capability subfactors, the resulting performance confidence assessment represents the Government’s confidence in an offeror’s ability to complete work of the same type, size and magnitude for the May 2022 Tattoo Production Services requirement. Each offeror will receive on overall performance confidence rating in accordance with the following:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

ASSESSMENTS

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

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. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral Confidence. A “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating may be worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in this solicitation.

Factor 3: Price

Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable, and balanced price. The techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1(b) and FAR 15.404-1(g) will be the primary means of accomplishing the price analysis, including reasonableness.

The Government will evaluate proposed prices to determine whether prices reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s Technical Capability Proposal. An offeror may be determined un-awardable if its proposed price is evaluated as unreasonable, unbalanced or unrealistic. This analysis in no way limits the Government’s right to award to a higher priced offer, if that offer represents the best value to the government.

The offeror’s price proposal shall represent the offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. In instances where an offeror receives at least an “Acceptable” technical rating and at least a neutral confidence past performance rating, yet proposed prices are inconsistent with their technical approach, offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s). An exceptionally low or unreasonably high offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent between promised performance/technical approach and price, shall be explained in the proposal.

(End of Addendum)

Proposals may be submitted electronically to Mr. Christopher Finik at christopher.finik@us.af.mil and Ms. Diane Feguer at diane.feguer@us.af.mil. Offers are due no later than 5 July 2022, 1600hrs EST.

Offers received after this date and time will be considered as late submissions in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f) and will not be evaluated or considered. Please refer any questions to Mr. Christopher Finik at christopher.finik@us.af.mil or Ms. Diane Feguer and diane.feguer@us.af.mil.