DRAFT Contractual Solicitation Provisions_STEP 3kW EMD.pdf

DRAFT SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

FOR

SMALL TACTICAL ELECTRIC POWER

3kW TACTICAL POWER SOURCE (STEP – 3kW TPS)

PREPARED BY

PROJECT MANAGER

EXPEDITIONARY ENERGY AND SUSTAINMENT SYSTEMS (PM E2S2)

PRODUCT DIRECTOR

SMALL EXPEDITIONARY POWER SOURCES (PD SEPS)

FT BELVOIR VA

JULY 2021

A. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

The Government intends to execute a multiple-award Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract, based on the availability of funding. Awards will be made to the Offeror’s with the proposals that the Government determines to represent the Best Value Trade-off to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors:

(1) Small Business Participation, (2) Technical, (3) Cost/Price, and (4) Past Performance.

The relative order of importance is established per the order listed above. The Small Business Participation is slightly more than the Technical Factor; the Technical Factor is significantly more important than the Price Factor, which is slightly more important than the Past Performance Factor. All evaluation factors other than Price (meaning Small Business Participation, Technical and Past Performance), when combined, are significantly more important than Price. The Technical factor is comprised of two (2) Subfactors: Subfactor 1.1 – Development Approach and Subfactor 1.2 – Management Approach. To receive consideration for award, a rating of Acceptable or above must be achieved for the Technical and Past Performance Factors.

The burden is on the Offeror’s to demonstrate that each technical criteria is satisfied;

technical capabilities being evaluated herein shall be demonstrated not by mere conclusory statements, but by specific approaches and examples. The Offeror’s are cautioned that statements of compliance or repetition of the technical requirements for the subfactors being evaluated below, without complete and factual discussion and analysis, do not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. In addition, the Offeror must make an affirmative statement at the beginning of its technical proposal that its proposed systems meet all requirements of the Statement of Objective (SOO) and Performance Specification. Failure to do so may result in the Offeror being deemed unacceptable and removed from any set competitive range. The Offeror’s are cautioned that any capabilities proposed that exceed the threshold requirements may be incorporated into the resultant Contract, SOO, and/or Performance Specification, as a new contractual requirement if the Offeror is successful.

It is the Government’s intent to make award without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror should provide its best terms from a technical and price standpoint in its initial proposal.

The Government reserves the right, however, to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer. Should discussions occur, an Offeror may be removed from consideration through establishment of a competitive range determination.

In addition, if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Proposals that do not include all the information and materials prescribed in Section L of the solicitation may be disqualified from consideration for award upon receipt without further review by the Government.

In order to be considered for award, an Offeror must also be determined responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1. Finally, Offeror’s shall not include any assumptions, terms, conditions, caveats, or exceptions in their proposals.

With the exception of the Past Performance Factor, the Government’s evaluations will be based solely on materials included in the proposal.

B. FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Award will be made to the Offeror with the proposal providing the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The following evaluation Factors and Subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

FACTOR 1: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL FACTOR: The Technical Factor is further divided into the following Subfactors:

Subfactor 1.1: Development Approach Subfactor 1.2: Management Approach

Note that Subfactor 1.1, Development Approach, is more important than Subfactor 1.2, Management Approach.

The Government’s evaluation of proposals will address each Technical Subfactor as it applies to the SOO and Performance Specification. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach,” Paragraph C, below. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign findings (Strengths, Weaknesses, etc.) for each Technical Subfactor. Offers will receive only one overall Adjectival Rating for the Technical Factor, using the adjectival rating terms and definitions in the Table 1 (Technical Factor Ratings).

FACTOR 2: PRICE FACTOR: The resulting award will be a multiple-award CPFF contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of this effort.

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR: Each past performance reference from each Offeror will be evaluated for recency, relevancy, and quality. These aspects, combined, will be considered to establish one overall Performance Assessment rating for each Offeror, on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

The following definitions will be used in evaluation of proposals:

Deficiency. 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. See FAR 15.001.

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. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating.

All proposals will be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. Technical Factor. When evaluating Technical Subfactors, the Government will generally be considering the Offeror’s Understanding of the Problem and Feasibility of Approach as follows:

a. Understanding of the Problem. For any Technical Subfactor the Government may consider the extent to which the proposal demonstrates the Offeror’s clear understanding of all features involved in solving the problem and meeting the requirements, and the extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed.

b. Feasibility of Approach. For any Technical Subfactor the Government may consider the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal may be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques that meet or exceed the SOO, Performance Specification, and associated requirements outlined in the solicitation.

The proposal may be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

The Technical Factor consists of evaluation of the following Subfactors:

Subfactor 1.1: Development Approach: The Government will assess the feasibility and viability of the Offeror’s proposed approach to satisfy the requirements set forth in the Performance Specification.

Subfactor 1.2: Management Approach: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall management approach to the SOO and Performance Specification requirements.

Evaluation of this subfactor will rely heavily on the Offeror’s proposed Statement of Work.

Innovations proposed in the Offeror’s management approach will be evaluated for their impact on schedule, performance, and Government resource utilization.

Table M-1. Technical Factor Ratings

2. Price Factor Evaluation. The resultant contract will be a multiple-award CPFF Contract with CPFF contract line items. All priced CLINs will be included in the price evaluation. The Price used for source selection trade-off purposes, will be based on a Total Evaluated Price for all proposed contract line items, using the Pricing Model filled out by the Offeror and the methodology described below. The Government will not perform a Price-realism analysis.

The Government will use price analysis to determine whether the proposed prices are fair and reasonable. Should the Government determine the proposed prices include

TABLE M-1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is not awardable.

unbalanced pricing, this may be considered a performance risk. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total of all Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) / Sub-contract Line Item Number (SLIN) prices in accordance with Attachment 0008, Price Model. Offeror’s shall fill out unit prices in Attachment 0008 and return to the Government. Offeror’s are cautioned that the prices placed in the cost model will constitute the Section B offered pricing and will result in binding unit prices on the contract.

The total CLIN/SLIN prices for the FFP line items will be calculated according to the following:

a. For purposes of evaluating IDIQ FFP CLINs with range quantity prices, the total evaluated price for each program year will be calculated by computing a weighted average price for each range, in each CLIN, and multiplying the weighted average price by an estimated quantity to be ordered (as specified in Attachment 0008, Price Model).

b. For all other FFP CLINS/SLINs (any without range pricing), the proposed unit or lot prices will be multiplied by anticipated yearly quantities, in accordance with Attachment 0008, Price Model, to establish the evaluated CLIN price.

NOTE: For pricing purposes, Offeror’s are cautioned that each generator shall be delivered with one set of the corresponding Basic Issue Items (BII) as part of the purchase price. Additional, separately-priced CLINs for the BII kit, Remote Start Kit, and Remote Fueling Kit shall be separately priced and will allow for the separate ordering of these kits in different quantities than the generator sets.

c. All CLINs will then be summed to create a Total Evaluated Price.

d. Price reasonableness will be established by a comparison of proposed prices received in response to this RFP. In its discretion and as circumstances warrant, the Government may also consider one or more other factors enumerated at FAR 15.404- 1(b) in evaluating the reasonableness of proposed pricing.

3. Past Performance Evaluation. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s record of past performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the resultant contract.

a. Evaluation of past performance will be in accordance with this plan and may utilize the forms and questionnaires set forth in Attachment 0009, Past Performance Questionnaire. The Government may also use outside sources to include interviews, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and other sources.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the Offeror’s record of performance (to include major subcontractors) as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. A major subcontractor is defined as a member of an Offeror’s team that is expected to provide critical hardware/services and/or whose subcontract is 20% percent or more of the total proposed effort (Total Evaluated Price of Attachment 0008 Price Model). Critical hardware is defined as any supplier of the spare parts listed at Attachment 0008 Price Model. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Offeror’s are reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past five years) in their proposal. Relevant efforts are defined as acquisitions with a value of $500,000 or more, and which are related to production and delivery of mobile power generating units and/or power distribution equipment, 200kW or less.

c. The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files, Government Past Performance databases, or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the Offeror and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local Government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 335312. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past five (5) years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past five (5) years without regard to the contract award date of the past performance reference.

d. The past performance evaluation will consider each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy and quality, which combined will result in an overall performance assessment of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

(i) RECENCY: Recency is defined as efforts awarded or with performance occurring within the past five (5) years prior to the issuance date of the RFP.

(ii) RELEVANCY: Relevant efforts are defined as contracts or acquisitions with a value of $500,000 or more, and which are for the production and delivery of mobile power generating units and/or power distribution equipment, 200kW or less.

(iii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The Government will assess the quality of the Offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the Offeror performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

(iv) PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT: The Government will assign a single performance assessment for the Offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from Table

4. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered.

Table 4 – Performance Assessments

Performance Assessments

Rating Definition

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

e. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall receive an “Acceptable” past performance rating.

D. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (Section L)

1. Introduction.

a. Overview. To be considered for award, the solicitation requires the submission of a written proposal.

b. Manner of Submission. The Offeror’s written proposal shall be submitted electronically through www.SAM.gov. The content for each written proposal volume is discussed in the paragraphs below. Offeror’s will need to be registered users of www.SAM.gov in order to submit proposals. The Offeror’s written proposal submission shall consist of seven (7) volumes as follows:

Volume I – Executive Summary

Volume II – Small Business Participation

Volume III - Technical

Volume IV – Price

Volume V – Statement of Work

Volume VI – Past Performance

Volume VII - Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents

d. Early Submission Encouraged. WARNING: Offeror’s should not wait until the last minute to submit proposals. To avoid submission of late proposals, which may not be considered depending on the circumstances, the Government recommends Offeror’s the transmission of your proposal file 24 hours prior to the required proposal due date and time.

e. Proposal Validity. Proposals shall remain valid for a minimum of 180 days from the closing date for receipt of written proposals.

f. Prohibition on Classified Information. Files uploaded to www.SAM.gov or otherwise provided in response to this solicitation shall not contain classified data.

g. Discussions. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to hold discussions. If discussions are conducted, the Government may conduct them using the Acquisition Source Selection Interactive Support Tool (ASSIST). The Acquisition Source Selection Interactive Support Tool (ASSIST) will allow Offeror’s to receive and respond to Evaluation Notices (ENs) securely on-line. Offeror’s are required to provide two

(2) company agents whose responsibilities will include reading and responding to ENs through ASSIST. For example, the Offeror’s Contract Manager, as an agent of the http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ company, may be the main agent responsible, but a second agent must be available in case of the main agent’s unavailability. The two (2) agents’ names, company titles, telephone numbers, facsimile numbers, and e-mail addresses shall be provided. This required information shall be submitted with proposals under Volume V - Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents. In order to access the Acquisition Source Selection Interactive Support Tool (ASSIST), the agents will need usernames and passwords. Once the company agents are provided access to ASSIST, your company will be informed of the specific website where your agents will receive and respond to the Evaluation Notices (ENs). Offeror’s are cautioned that receipt of the website does NOT constitute official notice that a competitive range determination has been made or that a particular Offeror remains in the competitive range. The intent of this section is to advise Offeror’s that they may be receiving EN questions on-line if they remain in the competitive range and the Government decides to conduct discussions. Detailed instructions will be provided during the proposal evaluation phase. The ASSIST software program will allow Offeror’s to receive and respond to ENs securely on-line.

h. Clarity and Compliance. Offeror’s are cautioned that "parroting" of the Technical requirements or the SOO with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offeror’s are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal.

The Government may consider how well the Offeror complied with these instructions when evaluating the Offeror’s capability to perform the prospective contract. Offeror’s are advised to ask for clarification on any part of the solicitation they do not understand.

i. Non-Government Evaluators. Not-applicable. Proposals will be subjected to evaluation by a team of Government personnel.

j. Incorporation of Proposals. The Government reserves the right to incorporate any portion(s) of the winning proposal into the resultant contract.

k. Questions. Questions regarding the solicitation shall be in writing and directed via e-mail to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist, normally at least 10 days before solicitation closing date (questions received after that may or may not be answered). The Government will answer all questions electronically so that all Offeror’s will see both the question and the answer. The Government may sanitize questions as necessary to protect the identity of the Offeror(s) submitting the question(s), but it is ultimately an Offeror’s responsibility to ensure their questions do not contain proprietary or trade-secret type information.

2. Proposal Files

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and solicitation number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents must be included. All pages (not including Excel files) shall use the follow parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right - 1”

Gutter – 0”

From Edge – Header, Footer - 0.5”

Page Size, Width – 8.5”

Page Size, Height – 11”

The following additional restrictions apply:

(1) Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial is the only font authorized. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size not less than eight (8) point and may be in landscape format. Page numbers, headers, and footers may be within the page margins, and are not bound by the font requirements.

(2) All pages shall be sequentially numbered within each individual volume.

The page limits are inclusive of all pages, including for example title page, table of contents, the list of illustrations, the acronym list or cross reference index, glossary and any summary section. If the Offeror includes its own annexes or attachments, those annexes or attachments must be clearly identified, and count towards page limits.

(3) Any pages that exceed the page limits for each volume or attachment will not be evaluated. Pages that exceed the margin, font, or total page limit will not be evaluated. Pages deleted due to violation of the margin or font restrictions will not count against the page limitation. Page count will NOT be based upon the numbers of pages printed, but rather dictated by the number of pages in a print layout view in the application based upon the above-prescribed document settings. Counting pages in the order they appear for viewing will make up the page count.

(3) No price information shall be presented in Volumes I, II, IV, V, or VI.

Table 5 – Page Counts and File Names

Volume Title File Name1 Page Limit

I Cover Page and Executive Summary EXECSUM.PDF 3

II Small Business Participation SBP.PDF 5

III Technical Proposal TECH.PDF 30

IV Price – Completed Attachment 0008, Price Model

TOTALPRICE.XLS N/A

V Proposed Statement of Work SOW.PDF 15

VI Past Performance – Summary of Relevant Contract Experience

EXPER.XLS N/A

VI Past Performance – Performance PERF.PDF See Note2

VI Past Performance – Subcontracts SUBCONT.PDF See Note2

VII Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents And Certifications/Representations (includes Data Rights Assertions).

FRREP.PDF No Limit

Note 1: Offeror’s may include firm name or initials in the above listed file names.

Note 2: Each instance identified for relevant past performance shall be limited to no more than three pages. Any cure notices or show-cause notices required to be provided as part of the Past Performance instructions do not count against page limits.

b. File Packaging. Each Offeror shall submit its electronic proposal in five (5) separate Volumes with seven (7) separate files, as depicted in Table 5, above. Microsoft Office products shall be used to create any “.XLS”, and “.DOC” files. Adobe Acrobat shall be used to create “.PDF” files. The use of hyperlinks, embedded attachments, or self-extracting files (.exe for example) in proposals is prohibited.

c. Proprietary Markings. Proprietary markings are permitted and all proprietary data must be clearly marked.

d. Content Requirements. All information shall be confined to the appropriate volume/file. The Offeror shall confine submissions to essential information, sufficient to define the proposal and provide adequate basis for evaluation. Offeror’s are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each volume/file of the proposal, at a minimum, must include a title page, table of contents, summary section, and the narrative discussion.

The Summary Section should contain a brief abstract of the file.

1. VOLUME I – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

The Executive Summary Volume should contain synopsis of the information contained in Volumes II, IV, V, and VI. Pricing information shall not be included. The executive summary should include a summary of the management approach and design being offered in response to this solicitation in accordance with the SOO and Performance Specification. The Executive Summary is an introductory summation of the proposal. No information should be in the Executive Summary that does not appear elsewhere in the proposal and the Executive Summary will not be evaluated.

2. VOLUME III – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL.

a. Offeror’s must submit information and substantiating data supporting their approach for meeting the technical requirements of the SOO and Performance Specification. This volume will be the primary method of evaluating Subfactor 1.1, as described below.

b. The Offeror must provide an affirmative statement at the beginning of the technical proposal of Offeror’s ability and intent to comply with all requirements of the SOO and Performance Specification.

c. Subfactor 1.1: Performance Approach

Offeror’s shall submit all performance parameters of the proposed systems as they relate to the Performance Specification requirements. This may be chart or narrative format.

The Government should be able to tell for each Performance Specification requirement whether the proposed system meets or exceeds (including by how much) each requirement. The Offeror should also describe any previously-conducted verification efforts. Offeror’s are cautioned that the performance parameters stated by the Offeror may be incorporated into the resultant contract. Stated differently, if an Offeror receives a favorable evaluation for proposing performance exceeding SOW or Performance Specification requirements, that increased level of performance may be made by the Government into contractual requirement.

4. VOLUME IV – PRICE. The Offeror must complete Section B of the Solicitation and the Attachment 0008, Price Model. Prices for FFP CLINs should be input directly into the space allotted in the Price Model and Section B. Section B Pricing should be based on the Price Model and Pricing Model Notes and Instructions included in Attachment 0008.

If any CLIN/SLIN is proposed without a unit price (e.g. NSP, N/A, $-0-, blank, TBD, etc.), the Offeror must explain in detail why it is not priced. If the price is "NSP" (Not Separately Priced), it must be clearly indicated as to which CLIN/SLIN(s) must be exercised to obtain the item(s). If "N/A" (Not Available or obsolete item), the Offeror must provide a similar substitute item with all the required information (e.g. part number, description, price, etc.).

If priced as $0.00, explain whether the Government can order this item at no cost and if the cost is included in other CLIN/SLIN(s). This information may be submitted in a separate Text (*.pdf) file.

The Offeror must price all travel costs using the standard CONUS per diem rate as identified in https://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/142071.

5. VOLUME V – STATEMENT OF WORK

a. The Offeror shall use the SOO to propose a Statement of Work (SOW) that expands upon the minimum objectives. The proposed SOW shall define the tasks required, addressing all minimum requirements of the Government-provided SOO and including the deliverables at each task. The proposed SOW, when accepted by the Government, will be incorporated in the final contract. This volume will be the primary method for evaluating subfactor 1.2, as described below.

b. The proposed SOW shall be clear and concise and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government requirements, but shall provide https://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/142071 convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these objectives.

Offeror’s shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s SOW.

c. Subfactor 1.2: Management Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall management approach to the SOO and Performance Specification requirements.

Innovations proposed in the offeror’s management approach will be evaluated for their impact on schedule, performance, and Government resource utilization.

5. VOLUME VI – PAST PERFORMANCE.

a. This volume contains past performance references regarding recent and relevant contracts. Offeror’s shall submit up to three (3) Government and/or commercial contract past performance references for the prime Offeror, and up to three (3) for each major subcontractor. Each past performance reference is limited to no more than three pages.

These references shall be recent and relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may, but is not required to, consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources in addition to the Offeror’s proposal.

b. A recent past performance reference is one which was awarded and/or had performance occurring during the past five years from the issue date of the solicitation.

Relevant past performance references are contracts/acquisitions with a value of $500,000 or more, and which are related to development or production and delivery of mobile power generating units and/or power distribution equipment, 200kW or less.

c. Each past performance references should clarify whether it is for the Prime Offeror or a proposed major subcontractor. In addition, letters of commitment must be included for all major subcontractors for which the Prime Contractor submits a past performance reference or the Government may not consider that past performance reference. Each past performance reference should be organized as follows:

a) Section 1 – Contract Descriptions.

i) Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, Contractor and Government Entity (CAGE) Code and the Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and Point of Contact (POC) within the prime contractor organization (name, and current address, e-mail address, and telephone and fax numbers).

ii) Government or commercial contracting activity, and current address, Procuring Contracting Officer’s name, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

iii) Government technical representative/COR and current email address, telephone and fax numbers.

iv) Government or commercial contract administration activity and the Administrative Contracting Officer’s name, and current e-mail address, telephone and fax number.

v) Government or commercial contract administration activities Pre- Award Monitor’s name, and current e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

vi) Contract Number and, in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements. Include recent and relevant Delivery Order Numbers, as defined herein.

vii) Contract Type (specific type such as Fixed-Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Material (T&M), etc.). In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, indicate specific type (Requirements, Definite Quantity, and Indefinite Quantity) and secondary contract type (FP, CR, T&M, etc.).

viii) Awarded price.

ix) Final or projected final price.

x) Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion or work.

xi) Final or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

b) Section 2 – Performance. Offeror’s must provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1, Contract Description, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP.

i) For any contracts not meeting the original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The Offeror’s must list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. The Offeror’s must also provide copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the Offeror or proposed subcontractor. The Offeror’s must indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

ii) For all contracts, the Offeror must provide data on all manufacturing warranty returns. Data shall delineate total number of warranty returns, number of Could Not Duplicate (CND), number of failures attributable to GFE component failures, and number and nature of failures attributable to the Offeror’s delivered product.

c) Section 3 – Subcontracts. Offeror’s must provide an outline of how the effort required by the RFP will be assigned for performance within the Offeror’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors. The information provided for the prime Offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE Code, DUNS Number and type of work to be performed by citing the applicable Government PWS subparagraph number. This includes all subcontractors that will be providing critical hardware or whose subcontract is 20% or more of the total proposed price. Critical Hardware is defined as any supplier of the spare parts listed at Attachment 0008 Price Model. This section will further include written consent of major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of their subcontractors’ past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment must be included for all major subcontractors.

d) Section 4 – New Corporate Entities. New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the Offeror must discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Information should be included in the files described in the sections above. Letters of Commitment shall be included in the proposal for these employees in order to be considered.

e) Past Performance Questionnaire. For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a Past Performance Questionnaire must be completed and submitted. The Offeror must complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date, to x.x.x.civ@mail.mil. The Offeror must e-mail to the Contracting Officer a list of all the POC’s who were sent a questionnaire. The Government must receive this list no later than the proposal due date.

The POC List must be submitted in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date E-Mail to POC (month/day).

f) Submissions. Offeror’s are discouraged from providing points of contact with another Offeror’s facility in case an Offeror (or one of his/her team members) is in a subcontract with another contractor who has submitted a proposal on the same requirement. Offeror’s must provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency POCs in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs in situations as described above.

6. VOLUME VII - SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND

CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS (AND DATA RIGHTS) - Certifications and Representations – Each Offeror must complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the mailto:x.x.x.civ@mail.mil

RFP. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 33 and all certifications requiring original signature. An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

(a) Section A – Offer. The Offeror must include a cover letter providing the following information:

(1) Solicitation number;

(2) Name, address, electronic mail address, telephone and facsimile number of points of contact for the Offeror;

(3) A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation;

(4) Names, titles, electronic addresses, telephone and facsimile numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror's behalf in connection with this solicitation;

(5) Name, title and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal (evidence of agent’s authority to sign shall be included within the proposal);

(6) Offeror’s DUNS Number, CAGE Code, and taxpayer ID; and

(7) Statement regarding the proposal acceptance period. The Government requires a minimum proposal acceptance period of 180 calendar days.

(b) Section B – Standard Form 33 (SF 33), Solicitation, Offer and Award. The completed SF 33 shall include:

Section A – Standard Form 33 (SF 33), Solicitation, Offer and Award Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs Section G – Contract Administration Data Section K – Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offeror’s Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offeror’s

(c) Section C – Data Rights Assertions. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in

DFARS 252.227-7017, Offeror’s are required to specifically identify Data/Software Rights Assertions related to technical data and software deliverables. As indicated in DFARS 252.227-7017(e), an Offeror's failure to submit, complete, or sign the aforementioned Data and Software Rights Assertions with its offer may render the offer ineligible for award. In accordance with the content and formatting requirements for Data and Software Rights Assertions (set forth in DFARS 252.227-7017), the Offeror's Data and Software Rights Assertions shall comply with the following requirements:

1) The Offeror shall not assert license restrictions on items, component, or processes themselves. The asserted license restrictions shall pertain to software or technical data that relates to items, components, or processes.

2) The Offeror's Assertions shall not include technical data or software that will not be furnished to the Government under this Contract.

3) The Offeror shall provide a concise (but specific) description of the technical data and software deliverables that will be furnished to the Government with restrictions, rather than generically asserting license restrictions in "technical data" or "technology."

4) The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that Data and Software Rights Assertions from its subcontractors comply with the aforementioned content and formatting requirements (in accordance with DFARS 252.227-7017).

5) Offeror’s shall provide Data/Software Rights Assertions in a tabular format prescribed in DFARS 252.227-7017. However, in addition to the content and formatting requirements set forth in DFARS 252.227-7017, the Offeror’s Data/Software Rights Assertions table shall list technical data and software items that the Offeror intends to furnish to the Government with and without license restrictions. Thus, the Data/Software Rights Assertions table may include technical data and software items that are provided to the Government with an “unlimited rights” license. In the Offeror’s identification of technical data and software license rights, the Offeror shall use the prescribed categories of license rights referenced in DFARS 252.227-7014 and DFARS 252.227-7015 (e.g,.

“Limited Rights”, Government Purpose Rights”, “Unlimited Rights”, “Unrestricted Rights”, or “Commercial Software License Agreement”).

6) As a Reminder, the Government is entitled to Unlimited Rights in data completely Government-funded during the performance of this contract, as well as other data that constitutes form, fit, and function data (FFF data); data necessary for operation, maintenance, installation, or training purposes (OMIT data); studies, analyses, test data, or similar data produced for this contract; and computer software documentation. For this reason, the Government expects to receive Unlimited Rights in any operation/user manual.

7) Given the challenges that small business Offeror’s sometimes have with correctly formatting Data Assertions Tables, and consisting the Data Rights are not part of the Government’s trade-off decision for award, the Government may communicate with individual Offeror’s regarding data assertions and request revised Data Assertions Tables at any time after receipt of proposals and this shall not constitute discussions for the purpose of this source selection.

(d) Non-Disclosure Agreements – Each Offeror must submit copies of their completed non-disclosure agreements with Radiance Technologies, as specified in paragraph D.1.c above. POC for the company is as follows:

Company POC/Email/Phone

Radiance Technologies : Jennifer Dean Jennifer.dean@radiancetech.com 256-489-8575

(e) Certification of compliance or registration of the Offeror’s quality system by an independent standards organization or auditor is not required. However, if the Offeror has a certified quality system, a copy of such certification may be attached with the offer in response to the solicitation as proof of system compliance.

E. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offeror’s (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)), although the Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range and open discussions if determined to be in the Government’s best interest. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each Offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all Offeror’s in the competitive range will be allowed to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

mailto:Jennifer.dean@radiancetech.com