Atch 2-ILAB1 Instructions to Offerors

ILAB-OTLA Contract Research Program 2011 Solicitation DOL111RP21274 Research Supporting Livelihoods, Working Conditions or Worker Rights Page 1 of 8

ATTACHMENT 2

SOLICITATION ADDENDUM

52-212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

52.212-1(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors, listed in descending order of importance shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1: Technical Sub-factor 1 - Understanding of the Requirement Sub-factor 2 - Experience Sub-factor 3 - Key Personnel (Curriculum Vitae/Resumes)

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

Technical is more important than past performance or price. When combined, technical and past performance are significantly more important than price

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

52.212-1(b) Submission of offers:

Offerors shall submit proposals in response to this solicitation in English and in U.S. dollars. Offerors may submit revised proposals only if requested or allowed by the Contracting Officer.

In addition to requirements outlined in 52.212-1(b)(1) thru (b)(11), these instructions require Offerors to submit the following with their proposals:

• Price, Technical, and Past Performance Proposals in separate parts/volumes

• Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Quality Control Plan

• Curriculum Vitae (CV) for key personnel (Resumes)

• References on current or past performance information (PPI), no more than three (3)

52-212-1(b)(1)(9) Acknowledgement of Solicitation Amendments: Offerors are required to acknowledge receipt of any and all amendments issued under this solicitation and that failure to do so may result in the determination of non-responsiveness. Amendments should be acknowledged by signature on the applicable SF1449.

52.212-1(c) Period for acceptance of offers: The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 60 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers, unless another time period is specified in an addendum to the solicitation.

52.212-1(e) Multiple offers: Offerors are encouraged to submit multiple offers presenting alternative terms and conditions for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation. Each offer submitted will be evaluated separately.

52.212-1(f) Late submissions, modifications, revisions, and withdrawals of offers: Proposals may be hand-delivered to the address cited below or sent via regular mail. Facsimile and E-mail submissions of proposals are not permitted. Proposals are to be delivered to the address cited in block 8 of the

Research Supporting Livelihoods, Working Conditions or Worker Rights Page 2 of 8

SF1449 to reach the Office of Procurement on or before the date and time specified in block 9 of the

SF1449.

52.212-(h) Multiple awards: The Government anticipates that three or more awards will be made from this solicitation

2. Place of Performance: Offeror’s proposal must identify the primary address where the work will be performed (see FAR clause 52.222-49, Place of Performance).

A. PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

1. 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, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being considered nonresponsive and determined ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

2. The response shall consist of three (3) separate parts; Part I - Price Proposal, including completed Representations & Certifications or ORCA record, Part II - Technical Proposal, including Resumes and Company Experience, and Part III - Past Performance Information.

3. Proposals shall include a matrix that cross-references proposed PWS tasks to the Statement of Objectives (SOO) and Solicitation requirements specified in the Instructions to Offerors section. The matrix must be sufficient for the evaluation team to cross-reference information during the source selection process.

4. The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional cost information will be requested and certification will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price.

5. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in these Instructions to Offerors. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. 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.

6. Proposals submitted on electronic media (CDs, DVD, etc) shall be virus free and contain a label that identifies the Contractor name, the solicitation number, and the proposal volume (e.g., technical, past performance, price). Proposal data on both hard copies and electronic submissions must match. In the case of a conflict of information between the two versions, the paper copy takes precedence. CDs must be formatted to be compatible with Microsoft Office programs, Windows 2003 and Windows XP.

7. The Offeror shall ensure proprietary data, if any, is appropriately identified and marked. It is recommended that documents submitted via electronic media be protected to prevent loss of data.

Research Supporting Livelihoods, Working Conditions or Worker Rights Page 3 of 8

8. No contact shall be made to the Program Office (i.e., Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB)) regarding this solicitation. All questions regarding this solicitation must be directed to the Office of Procurement Services and shall be submitted in writing not later than July 15, 2011 to the following E-mail addresses:

Primary: white.brenda.j@dol.gov cc: Mitchell.cassandra@dol.gov

PROPOSAL FORMATS (Proposal Parts II and III) shall be as follows:

• The proposals will prepared on 8 1/2” x 11” paper except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams, which may not exceed 11” x 17”

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

• Typing shall not be less than 12 pitch

• Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are not desired or required

• Each proposal volume should include a table of contents for quick reference

• Use of Elaborate fonts are not required or desired (Time Romans Numeral and Arial are the preferred font types)

RESPONSIVENESS: Documents submitted in response to this Solicitation must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:

• Requirements of the Solicitation (CLINs & SOO), Government standards and other governing documents applicable to this acquisition

• Evaluation Factors for Award.

• Any limitation on the number of proposal pages. Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth in this Instructions to Offerors will not be read or evaluated, and will be removed from the proposal.

B. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

1. PART I – PRICE PROPOSAL - Submit original, two (2) hardcopies and two (2) electronic copies

(a) Complete the SF1449, blocks 12, 17a, 17b, 23-24 (but see continuation page), 30a, 30b, and 30c. The signature in block 30a shall be that of individual authorized to bind your company. In doing so, the Offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the solicitation. The Instructions to Offerors, Evaluation Factors, and Representations and Certifications Record will be physically removed from the contract at time of award.

(b) Insert proposed unit and extended prices in Section B for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). The extended amount must equal the whole dollar unit price multiplied by the number of units. To avoid rounding differences, extended amounts shall be rounded no more than two (2) decimal places. Amounts for the proposed study shall not include travel.

Travel expenses must be submitted separately. Travel costs will be paid on a reimbursable basis in accordance with the Federal Joint Travel Regulation.

(c) The contractor will be required to make one (1) trip to Washington DC to make a presentation of final results to ILAB staff. The Offeror must identify any additional travel to be funded through this project and provide a not-to-exceed amount for each trip. It should be noted that travel will be reimbursed on an expense basis up to the amount agreed by the United States Government and is subject to the Federal Travel Regulations. Travel originating outside a 50-mile radius of 200 Constitution Ave NW, Washington DC will be

Research Supporting Livelihoods, Working Conditions or Worker Rights Page 4 of 8 reimbursable up to $2,335.00, and is subject to the Federal Travel Regulations. Additional approved travel to be funded through this project is reimbursable up to $4,200. The total amount of approved travel is therefore reimbursable up to $6,535.00, as reflected in the Section B Price Schedule for each not-to-exceed travel CLIN.

(d) Offerors are encouraged to provide a price range that reflects different quantities, levels or complexities of analysis. For example, a proposal may offer one price for a study that analyzes existing data and another price for a study that also collects and analyzes a new round of data.

(e) The contract will be paid in accordance with the deliverable-based payment schedule attached to the solicitation. Payments will be made in accordance with the payment clause cited in the contract.

(f) Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in the Representations and Certifications attached to the solicitation or provide a copy of On-line Representations and Certifications (ORCA) record with proposal (https://orca.bpn.gov/). Submit only those pages requiring fill-ins.

(g) If applicable, provide a copy of the letter from the Small Business Administration (SBA) showing proof of Section 8(a) status.

2. PART II – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL - Limited to no more than 20 pages, excluding CVs.

Submit original plus two (2) hardcopies and two (2) electronic copies.

Subfactor 1 – Understanding the Requirement

• Research Questions: The Contractor shall propose at least one research question for Government review and consideration. The Government will make a determination as the subject and number of topics to award.

The research question shall be presented in the following format:

The discussion shall open with a one double-spaced page executive summary containing three

(3) paragraphs. Paragraph 1 will state succinctly the research question and innovation and/or expected impact of the proposed work. Paragraph 2 will summarize the researcher’s familiarity with the data and/or other research sources that will be used to carry out the work. Paragraph three (3) will summarize the researcher’s other qualifications to conduct the work.

The research question will then be discussed in detail in no more than ten additional double-spaced pages. This discussion shall include the following three sections:

o Section 1 will give a statement of the research question, the innovation and/or expected impact of the proposed work, and the methodology to be pursued.

o Section 2 will demonstrate the researcher’s familiarity with the data and/or other research sources that will be used to carry out the work. For proposed research that involves direct, original research involving human subjects, this section will also describe the review procedures that will be applied to ensure that the privacy and welfare of human subjects are adequately protected.

Demonstrating Familiarity with data and research sources:

Research Supporting Livelihoods, Working Conditions or Worker Rights Page 5 of 8

(a) For proposals to do empirical research, familiarity with data may be demonstrated through a discussion of how the researcher used it in prior work, through original work with the data prepared for and presented in the proposal, or through convincing discussion of the work of others.

(b) Proposals for a synthesis paper should identify and summarize briefly the ten most significant potential sources.

(c) A theoretical proposal should describe how the contribution would further knowledge, either through explaining it as an extension of existing theory, or some convincing demonstration that new theory is likely to be path-breaking.

(d) Proposals that combine synthetic, empirical and/or theoretical elements need only demonstrate familiarity in the area that will be the prime contribution of the research, e.g., if the main contribution of the work is to be empirical, it is only necessary to address (a) above.

o Section 3 will demonstrate how the proposal fits into an existing or contemplated research program of the researcher.

• Performance Work Statement (PWS):

The Contractor shall submit a Performance Work Statement (PWS) describing in detail the approach and specific tasks to be performed in meeting SOO objectives (Avoid use of phrases such as “will, as required”, “will, as necessary”, “will, periodically”, etc., and ensure that all terms and acronyms are defined). Contractor responsibilities shall be so stated in terms of the Contractor “shall….” The PWS shall clearly identify tasks to be performed and deliverables to be provided under the resultant contract. It is desirable that deliverable requirements are summarized in a table appended to the PWS (See SOO Section 6.0). Additionally, the PWS should include a table summarizing proposed performance objectives, monitoring methods, and performance acceptable quality levels (AQLs).

The Government evaluation team will evaluate the PWS to ensure it adequately defines and describes task objectives to be achieved, methodologies for achieving them, and resources required (e.g., personnel, equipment, etc). The PWS will be incorporated as an attachment to the resultant award document. Therefore, it is vitally important that the PWS is detailed and of good quality to ensure it adequately describes Contractor responsibilities in meeting the Government’s objectives as stated in the SOO.

The PWS shall clearly and distinctly identify Contractor personnel roles and responsibilities in performing PWS tasks (e.g., Will personnel consist of only one lead researcher with full responsibility for all PWS tasks or will personnel consist of two or more individuals functioning as a team?).

• Quality Control Plan (QCP): The Contractor shall submit a QCP that adequately describes procedures to be used to ensure successful contract performance.

Subfactor 2 – Experience

• The Offeror’s proposal shall also demonstrate the researcher’s familiarity with proposed research sources (including data) that will be used to complete research.

• The Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate how the proposal fits into an existing or contemplated research program of the researcher.

Research Supporting Livelihoods, Working Conditions or Worker Rights Page 6 of 8

Subfactor 3 – Key Personnel

The PWS shall identify key personnel and primary responsibilities under the contract and shall include details of the procedures to be utilized to ensure employees designated as “Key Personnel” shall not be removed or replaced without the written consent of the Government

The Offeror’s proposal shall include curriculum vitae (CV) for key personnel (i.e., lead researchers), not-to-exceed four (4) typed pages . CVs shall provide sufficient information for judging the quality and competence of proposed personnel, including experience, credentials, and publication history among other qualifications. In particular, the proposal shall demonstrate that the lead researcher(s) hold the following qualifications:

• The lead researcher(s) must demonstrate research experience in an area directly relevant to the topic proposed

• The lead researcher(s) must demonstrate a successful and recent publication record in peer-reviewed journals indexed in EconLit, with a minimum of one publication or one commitment to publish or “revise and resubmit” within the last 2 years.

• The lead researcher(s) must have a Ph.D. from an accredited university.

• If an individual contractor, the lead researcher(s) must demonstrate on-going affiliation with a research institution.

The Offeror’s proposal shall include a matrix that maps proposed key and non-key personnel to each PWS task, and indicates the level of responsibility proposed key and non-key personnel will have for each task. If personnel consist only of a lead researcher who will have full responsibility for all tasks, please indicate this by assigning “full responsibility” to the lead researcher column for all tasks. If work will be performed by a team, please indicate the name and role of each personnel member and indicate his or her responsibility for each task.

Technical proposals will be evaluated and assessed one of the ratings defined below.

Table 1: Technical Factor Ratings Table

ADJECTIVE DEFINITION

Outstanding

A proposal that satisfies all of the Government’s requirements with extensive detail to indicate feasibility of the approach and shows a thorough understanding of the problems and offers numerous significant strengths, which are not offset by weaknesses, with an overall low degree of risk of failing to meet the Government’s requirements. This includes how the proposed research question is directly relevant to ILAB and the specific research topics described in the PWS and the offeror’s research methodology.

Good

A proposal that satisfies all of the Government’s requirements with adequate detail to indicate feasibility of the approach and shows an understanding of the problems and offers some significant strengths or numerous minor strengths, which are not offset by weaknesses, with an overall low to moderate degree of risk of failing to meet the Government’s requirements. This includes how the proposed research question is directly relevant to ILAB and the specific research topics described in the PWS and the offeror’s research methodology.

Acceptable

A proposal that satisfies all of the Government’s requirements with minimal detail to indicate feasibility of the approach and shows a minimal understanding of the problems, with an overall moderate to high degree of risk of failing to meet the Government’s requirements.

This includes how the proposed research question is directly relevant to ILAB and the specific research topics described in the PWS and the

Research Supporting Livelihoods, Working Conditions or Worker Rights Page 7 of 8 offeror’s research methodology.

Unacceptable

A proposal that contains a major error(s), omission(s) or deficiency(ies) that indicates a lack of understanding of the problems or an approach that cannot be expected to meet requirements or involves a very high risk; and none of these conditions can be corrected without a major rewrite or revision of the proposal.

3. PART III – PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION - Limited to no more than 2 (two) pages per contract listed. Only references for same or similar type contract desired. Submit original plus two (2) hardcopies and two (2) electronic copies

(a) Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Three

Years: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for same or similar type contract. In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc.

(b) Performance Surveys: The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror's performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this Solicitation. The Government will use information submitted by the Offeror and other sources such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess performance. Provide a list of no more than three (3), of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three (3) years. Relevant contracts include research efforts similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to that of this requirement. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. Furnish the following information for each contract listed:

• Company/Division name

• Product/Service

• Contracting Agency/Customer

• Contract Number

• Contract Dollar Value

• Period of Performance

• Verified, up-to-date name, address, FAX & telephone number of the contracting officer

• Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

• Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

If a teaming arrangement is contemplated for the lead researcher position (i.e., there will be two or more co-lead researchers), provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contracts.

(c) Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent.

Provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

Research Supporting Livelihoods, Working Conditions or Worker Rights Page 8 of 8

(d) Relevancy Determination: The Government evaluators will review past performance information submitted with by each Offeror to determine relevancy as it relates to services being acquired under this Solicitation. Relevancy is defined as follows:

Very Relevant – current/past performance effort involved essentially the same size, scope, and magnitude of services this solicitation requires

Relevant - current/past performance effort is similar in same size, scope, and magnitude of services this solicitation requires

Somewhat Relevant - current/past performance effort is somewhat similar in same size, scope, and magnitude of services this solicitation requires

Not Relevant - current/past performance effort does not involve services similar in size, scope, or magnitude of those this solicitation requires

(e) Performance Confidence/Risk Assessment: Offers determined recent and relevant will be further assessed one of the following performance confidence/risk ratings. This rating assesses the Government’s confidence in the Contractor’s ability to successfully perform under the resultant contract/task order and risk associated with an Offeror’s proposal.

Performance confidence ratings are defined below.

• High Confidence/low risk: Based on the Schedule Contractor’s performance record, no doubt exist that the Contractor will successfully meet performance work statement requirements.

• Significant Confidence/low risk: Based on the Schedule Contractor’s performance record, little doubt exists that the Contractor will successfully meet performance work statement requirements.

• Satisfactory Confidence/low risk: Based on the Schedule Contractor’s performance record, some doubt exists that the Contractor will successfully meet performance work statement requirements and that some government oversight will be required.

• Little Confidence/high risk: Based on the Schedule Contractor’s performance record, the Government has substantial doubt the Schedule Contractor will successfully meet performance work statement requirements

• Unknown Confidence/unknown risk: Schedule Contractor has no relevant performance record. A thorough search was unable to identify any past performance information

(End of Provision)