FA3016-18-R-0005-0001.docx

FA301618R0005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

The following have been deleted:

252.204-0001

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been modified:

52.228-1 BID GUARANTEE (SEP 1996)

(a) Failure to furnish a bid guarantee in the proper form and amount, by the time set for opening of bids, may be cause for rejection of the bid.

(b) The bidder shall furnish a bid guarantee in the form of a firm commitment, e.g., bid bond supported by good and sufficient surety or sureties acceptable to the Government, postal money order, certified check, cashier's check, irrevocable letter of credit, or, under Treasury Department regulations, certain bonds or notes of the United States. The Contracting Officer will return bid guarantees, other than bid bonds, (1) to unsuccessful bidders as soon as practicable after the opening of bids, and (2) to the successful bidder upon execution of contractual documents and bonds (including any necessary coinsurance or reinsurance agreements), as required by the bid as accepted.-

(c) The amount of the bid guarantee will be required as necessary at the task order level.

(d) If the successful bidder, upon acceptance of its bid by the Government within the period specified for acceptance, fails to execute all contractual documents or furnish executed bond(s) within 10 days after receipt of the forms by the bidder, the Contracting Officer may terminate the contract for default.-

(e) In the event the contract is terminated for default, the bidder is liable for any cost of acquiring the work that exceeds the amount of its bid, and the bid guarantee is available to offset the difference.

(End of provision)

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

L-1.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1. This section provides general guidance for preparing proposals, as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. Throughout this section, the term “offeror” means the prime contractor submitting the proposal. The offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. Any offeror who submits an incomplete package may be considered unacceptable. It is the Offeror's responsibility to ensure the completeness of the proposal submitted. A proposal that is sufficiently documented to support cost/price and technical requirements in a complete, orderly and specific detailed manner will enable the Government to perform a thorough and fair evaluation. Evaluation of a proposal will be conducted solely on the basis of the information contained within it and the Government will not assume that an Offeror possesses any capabilities not specified. Non-compliance with the instructions and RFP may result in an unacceptable proposal evaluation and may be grounds to eliminate the proposal from consideration for contract award.

1. Type of Acquisition. This acquisition is a competitive Women-Owned Small Business Set-Aside, geographically restricted to Texas. For this acquisition, selection of offerors who provide the best value will be made using Subjective Tradeoff source selection procedures. Past Performance will be evaluated approximately equal to price.

1. Joint Venture Offerors: If the offeror is a joint venture, the offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a signed copy of the joint venture agreement with proposal. The agreement shall demonstrate the relationship between firms and identify contractual relationships and authorities to bind each entity of the joint venture.

1. Teaming/Partnering Offerors: If the offer is based on a teaming/partnering relationship, the offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties, including a copy of the teaming/partnership agreement. The agreement shall include information, which identifies the responsibilities for each entity under this contract. The agreement shall demonstrate the relationship between firms and identify contractual relationships and authorities to bind each entity of the teaming/partnering relationship

1. Discrepancies and Ambiguities. If an offeror believes the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, ambiguities, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the CO in writing with supporting rationale no later than 10 calendar days after the RFP release.

1. Mistakes. Mistakes in offeror’s proposal shall be handled in accordance with FAR 14.407-4 as referenced in FAR 15.508.

1. Postponement of Proposal Closing Date. If a determination is made to postpone a proposal closing date, an announcement of the determination shall be posted to the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) and, if practicable, before issuance of a formal RFP amendment otherwise communicated to prospective offerors.

1. Post-Award/Pre-Performance Conference. A post-award/pre-performance conference will be scheduled by the Contracting Officer (CO) and held prior to the commencement of any work at that installation under the awarded agreement. The offeror or their duly authorized representative is required to attend the post-award/pre-performance conference.

1. Discussions. If discussions or requests for revised proposals are conducted or requested by the Government, the prices identified in Schedule B of the final revised proposals shall be valid through the proposal acceptance period (SF 1442 Block 13D).

1. Acceptance Period. “Acceptance period” means the number of calendar days available to the Government for award from the date specified in this solicitation for receipt of offers. The Government requires a minimum acceptance period of 150 calendar days (SF 1442 Block 13). Offerors allowing less than the Government’s minimum acceptance period will be rejected.

1. Contract Document. Sections K, L and M apply to the solicitation phase only; therefore, they will not be a physical part of the resulting agreement.

1. Points of Contact (POC). The POC for this acquisition is Jenifer Lash, Contracting Officer (CO), and Wayne Shavers, Contracting Administrator (CA). Written requests for clarification may be sent to the CO/CA. Address any questions or concerns to them using the following contact information:

L-2.0 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

1. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Proposals must be complete, self-sufficient, and respond directly to the requirements of this solicitation; alternate proposals will not be accepted. The response shall consist of three (3) separate volumes; Volume I - Price Proposal, Volume II - Technical Proposal, and Volume III - Past Performance.

1. 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 data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 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 of the price.

1. Documents submitted in response to this RFP shall be fully acceptable to and consistent with the following:

1. Requirements of the RFP (Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) & Specifications or Statement of Work (SOW)), and Government standards and regulations pertaining to the Specifications or SOW.

2. Evaluation Factors for Award in Section M of this RFP.

3. Potential offerors must provide assertion that the Prime contractor can meet the bonding requirement of the contract (100% performance and payment bond) with respect to the maximum task order amount. Offerors must provide proof of bonding capacity with bonding capability letters from an approved surety listed with the Department of Treasury.

4. Any limitation on the number of proposal pages. Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth in this Section L will not be read or evaluated, and will be removed from the proposal.

5. Format for proposal Volumes II and III shall be as follows:

(a) The proposals will be 8 ½” x 11” except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams, which may not exceed 11” x 17”

(b) A page is defined as one side of a printed sheet of paper containing information.

(c) Typing shall not be less than 12 pitch.

(d) Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are not desired or required.

1. INFORMATION REGARDING SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL: All proposals must be either hand carried or mailed (i.e. USPS, FEDEX, DHL, and UPS etc.) directly to the 502nd Contracting Squadron, 1655 Selfridge Avenue, JBSA Lackland, TX 78236. The sealed envelope/package used to submit your proposal must show the time and date specified for receipt, the Solicitation Number, and the name and address of the offeror. Faxed or emailed proposals WILL NOT be accepted. Proposals must be received by the 502 Contracting Squadron no later than the date and time specified in block 13 of the Standard Form 1442.

1. Offerors are cautioned that Joint Base San Antonio - Lackland (JBSA - LAK) has stringent visitor control procedures requiring individuals not affiliated with the installation to obtain a visitor pass and be cleared by the Government point of contact to be visited prior to entrance. A request with at least 3 business days prior to entry must be received for an offeror to gain entrance onto JBSA - LAK. If within 3 business days prior to the proposal due date and time, offerors may try and schedule a time with the points of contact to pick up the proposal at the Visitor Center. It is possible the point of contact may not be available to clear offerors for entrance or pick up proposals, which may prohibit submission of hand-carried proposals; consequently, offerors electing to hand-carry their proposals for submittal just prior to closing time do so at their own risk. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208(b) “Submission, Modification, Revision, and Withdrawal of Proposals.”

1. Specific Instructions:

1. VOLUME I – PRICE PROPOSAL - Submit original and one (1) copy

(a) Complete blocks 14 through 20c of the SF 1442. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP Sections A through K. These sections constitute the model contract.

(b) Insert proposed unit prices in Section B (Attachment 1 of the solicitation) for each item. Offerors who do not comply with this requirement shall be considered unacceptable and not eligible for award.

(c) Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections B through K. Section K shall be returned in its entirety. For Sections B through I, the offeror shall submit only those pages that require a fill-in.

(d) Acknowledge any and all amendments issued to the solicitation in block 19 of the SF 1442.

2. VOLUME II – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL - Submit original, CD/DVD and one hard copy.

Offerors must meet an “Acceptable” standard in the Technical Factor in order for their technical proposal to be determined “technically acceptable.” The standard to pass is defined in Section M.

Demonstration Project: Offeror must provide a solution to the Demonstration Project (Attachment 7 and 8 of the solicitation). The solution shall conform to United Facilities Guide Specifications as supplied with the solicitation and others as referenced or applicable.

· A cover page including the Project Number, Solicitation Number, and Project Title.

· A written narrative describing approach to the subject project, to include at a minimum a list of assumptions, requirements, performance period, material lead times, and any special considerations such as phasing of construction.

· A schedule showing the offeror’s breakout of major work components, any permits required, etc. for the project and progression of work effort from task order award to completion.

· A schedule of material submittals schedule which identifies all items that have a material effect on the demonstration project.

3. VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION – Submit original, CD/DVD and one hard copy: Only references for recent and relevant past efforts/contracts are desired. Recent is defined as “within the past 3 years (From the due date in block 13 of the solicitation),” relevant is defined as “projects of similar scope and complexity to those described in the specifications with costs ranging between $2,000 and $500,000.” Offerors shall forward all past performance information to the Contracting Officer no later than 4:00 p.m. local San Antonio time 5 days prior to the due date in block 13.

1. 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 relevant past efforts/contracts. 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, subcontractor nonperformance, etc.

1. Point of Contact Information: Information forwarded shall include:

Project Agency Agency POC to include name, email and phone number Project Title Dollar value of project Period of Performance

1. Joint Venture Offerors: Past performance information may be submitted on behalf of the joint venture by either party to the joint venture. Joint venture past performance will be evaluated and rated on the basis of either party’s past performance.

1. Teaming/Partnering Offerors: If the offer is based on a teaming/partnering relationship, the offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties, including a copy of the teaming/partnership agreement. The agreement shall include information, which identifies the responsibilities for each entity under this contract. The agreement shall demonstrate the relationship between firms and identify contractual relationships and authorities to bind each entity of the teaming/partnering relationship.

1. Sub-Contractor Consent Form: 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.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M – PROPOSAL EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1 SOURCE SELECTION

1. Basis for Contract Award This is a Subjective Tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix B, and AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will award a Multiple Award IDIQ to up to 5 contractors which represents the best value to the Government by meeting the terms and conditions of the RFP. Contracts will be awarded to offerors deemed responsible in accordance with FAR part 9.1, as supplemented, and determined eligible by the Small Business Administration in accordance with FAR 19.15, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the Government. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price, with past performance being approximately equal to price. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award up to 5 contracts in response to this solicitation. Task Orders placed under the IDIQ contract will be competitively awarded using FAR 16.505(b)(1) fair opportunity processes.

1. Exchanges The Government intends to award without discussions; therefore, offerors should submit proposals that represent their best efforts. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. In the event discussions are to be conducted, the Government will establish a competitive range IAW FAR 15.306(c).

1. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

1. Evaluation Process The evaluation process to be used is as follows:

Step 1: All offerors will be evaluated for responsiveness in accordance with Section L – Instruction to Offerors.

Step 2: The technical factor will then be evaluated for acceptability.

Step 3: The Contracting Officer will evaluate the past performance submitted with the proposal to determine the confidence assessments rating. The Government reserves the right to verify third party information and/or additional sources. 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 will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror will be determined to have unknown past performance and shall be given a “Neutral Confidence” rating. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant efforts. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance confidence assessment than less recent performance.

Step 4: After the evaluation of each proposal is complete, each proposal will receive a technical rating, a past performance confidence assessments rating, and a total evaluated price. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for attachment 1, Unit Price Book, will be the basis for evaluating price for contract award decision purposes only. The TEP is defined as the total sum of offered prices for all items per five years. The TEP will be the only discriminator amongst Offerors for the Cost/Price Factor. Failure to propose prices for all items per each year as listed within attachment 1, Unit Price Book, will render the proposal incomplete and the entire proposal will be subject to rejection.

Step 5: Based on these ratings and the total evaluated price, the Government will determine if discussions will be held.

Step 6: The SSA will assess all the ratings and price for all offers to make an integrated assessment as to which offerors provide the best value to the Government.

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. The Government reserves the right to perform both price and technical evaluations on unacceptable offerors to determine if it is in its interest to open discussions. Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS

1. Evaluation Factors The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate technical proposals for acceptability, past performance will be evaluated using the performance confidence assessments ratings described in the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures (March 31, 2016), Table 5.

Volume I: Price

1. Volume I - Price Factor The evaluated price shall be the total evaluated price (defined as the total sum of offered prices per year multiplied by five (years)) proposed by the offeror in Section B. The evaluated price shall be determined “reasonable“ as defined in FAR 31.201-3. Price analysis will be done using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price. Per FAR 52.215-1(f)(8), the Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between contract line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

1. Volume II - Technical Factor For the purposes of technical evaluation, the term “offeror” will include any proposed teaming arrangements. The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each bullet within each factor. Any bullet evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, may not be eligible for award. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

TECHNICAL RATINGS

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical factor.

Factor: Demonstration Project (This project will be used for evaluation purposes only and will not be awarded).

Description: The solution to the demonstration project is acceptable when it is deemed complete and accurate in accordance with the painting specifications. The solution shall conform to United Facilities Criteria and with Specifications as supplied with the solicitation and others as referenced or applicable.

Standard: The solution is acceptable when the proposal adequately addresses each of the following bullets:

· A cover page including the project number, solicitation number, and project title.

· The written narrative describing the approach to the subject project which clearly demonstrates a thorough understanding of the construction effort and applicable codes and regulations associated with the Demonstration Project. The narrative will include all required elements of a proposal as identified in the demonstration project. The solution shall conform to United Facilities Guide Specifications as supplied with the solicitation and others as referenced or applicable.

· The schedule showing the offeror’s intended progression demonstrates a realistic timeframe, a reasonable breakout of the major work components (to include any permits required, etc.) and the associated completion percentage assigned for the Demonstration Project follows a logical progression of the work effort from task order award to completion.

· Demonstrate an understanding of the project’s requirements by providing the Schedule of Material Submittals of all items that have a material effect on the Demonstration Project.

D. Volume III - Past Performance Factor Past Performance will be evaluated approximately equal to price.

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments ratings described below.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

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.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is 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 be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral.” A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf