Attch J-7 Sections L and M Rev 01.pdf

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors

L-1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

L-1.1 The purpose of this solicitation is to notify prospective contractors on the performance of construction services for the FY25 electrical IDIQ multiple award task order contract in support of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (JBMDL). Construction services shall be provided for one

(1) base year and four (4) one year option periods. In addition, the government may extend the total length of the contract by no more than (6) months after the end of any option year, if necessary, and IAW with FAR 52.217-8

L-1.2 The Government intends to award to a target of three (3) vendors under this contract. The period of performance for this effort will be 12-months subsequent option periods, targeted to begin summer of 2025.

L-1.3 This is an all-electronic solicitation release. Hard copies are not available. The Government shall post all information pertaining to the solicitation and award of this requirement to the

Electronic Posting System, also known as SAM.gov. It is the responsibility of each offeror to review the web page for postings of amendments, updates, or changes to current information.

L-1.4 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 evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

L-1.5 Communications: Exchanges of information between Government and offerors shall be controlled by the Contracting Officer. Prospective offerors are advised that the pre-proposal conference will be held solely for the purpose of explaining the seed project and terms and conditions of the solicitation. Questions received, in writing, and subsequent answers shall be posted to

SAM.gov. Offerors are encouraged to submit in writing all questions and requests for clarifications no less than ten days prior to the Request for Proposal (RFP) closing date. The decision whether to respond to questions and requests for clarification made less than ten days prior to the RFP closing shall be at the sole discretion of the contracting officer. Failure of a prospective offeror to submit any questions will be construed to mean that the prospective offeror fully understands all requirements of the solicitation. Questions should be submitted via email sean.burney.1@us.af.mil and dana.wright.6@us.af.mil.

L-1.6 Joint Venture Offerors: If the offeror is a joint venture, the offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a copy of the joint venture agreement with proposal. 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 joint venture. Either party to the joint venture may submit performance information on behalf of the joint venture.

Joint venture performance will be evaluated and rated based on either party’s performance. The

SBA must receive Joint Venture Agreements prior to proposal due date and approved before award of a resulting contract. If a joint venture is contemplated, then the assigned SBA Business

Opportunity Specialist (BOS) must be advised as soon as possible.

Ensure the agreement is submitted to the BOS in sufficient time to permit a regulatory compliance review. Any corrections and/or changes requested must allow for review time by the

BOS before the proposal due date. No corrections and/or changes are permitted after the time for submission of offers.

L-1.7 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.

L-1.8 Multiple Companies: If a company has multiple business ventures, only one of their business ventures will be allowed to submit a proposal. The intent of the Electrical IDIQ program is to receive multiple offers with independently prepared proposals that foster competition.

L-1.9 Incurred Expenses: The Government is not responsible for any costs incurred or associated with preparation and submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation.

L-1.10 In compliance with FAR Subpart 4.8, the Government shall retain one (1) copy of all unsuccessful proposals and shall destroy all extra copies. No destruction certificate will be provided.

L-1.11 All proposals must be complete and respond directly to the requirements of this solicitation. Any commitments made in the proposal shall become a part of the resultant contract.

Failure to comply with these instructions may result in the Government summarily rejecting the offeror’s proposal.

L-1.12 The price proposal, contract forms, performance references, and offeror information shall include the documentation listed below. The price proposal must be based on the offeror's proposal for the seed project as set forth in the task order solicitation documents (see Section J, Attachments

J1 through J4). The government shall evaluate the proposal in accordance with Section M-

Evaluation Factors for Award.

L-1.13 Hand carried proposals will NOT be accepted. All proposals shall be submitted electronically to the POC’s listed at L-1.14. In the event of file size issues or concerns, the offeror may request a link to the DOD SAFE email (https://safe.apps.mil/) by contacting the POC’s listed in L-1.14. It is the offerors responsibility to allow ample time for the POCs to provide the DOD SAFE link to them, as well as submit their offers through the DOD

SAFE link prior to the Response Due Date, noted at Block 13 of the Solicitation.

Offerors are cautioned that Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ has visitor control procedures requiring individuals not affiliated with the installation to obtain a visitor pass prior to entrance.

SOME DELAY SHOULD BE ANTICIPATED WHEN ATTENDING THE

https://safe.apps.mil/)

MANDATORY SEED PROJECT SITE VISIT.

Offerors shall submit a Special Event Request Form Entry Authorization Letter (See

Section J-11) no later than FIVE calendar days prior to the Seed Project Site Visit date noted in Block 10 of the Solicitation. All visitors listed in the Special Event Request Form shall arrive at the Visitors center no later than TWO hours prior to the Seed Project Site

Visit start time. Proposals will NOT be accepted from Offerors who did not attend the Seed

Project Site Visit. Any Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.215-

1(c) “Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of proposals.”

L-1.14 All proposals must be submitted electrically. Contractor proposals shall be submitted via email to sean.burney.1@us.af.mil and dana.wright.6@us.af.mil

FEDERAL HOLIDAYS: The following Federal Legal Holidays are observed by this base:

New Year’s Day - 1 January

Martin Luther King’s Birthday Third Monday in January

Presidents Day Third Monday in February

Memorial Day Last Monday in May

Juneteenth - 19 June

Independence Day - 4 July

Labor Day First Monday in September

Columbus Day Second Monday in October

Veterans Day - 11 November

Thanksgiving Day Fourth Thursday in November

Christmas Day - 25 December

L-2 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

L-2.1 Volume Organization: Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in three (3) separate volumes as set forth below:

Volume Description Copies Reference Paragraph

I Contract Documents 1 L-2.2.1

II Past Performance 1 L-2.2.2

III Price 1 L-2.2.3

L-2.2 Volume Content

L-2.2.1 Volume I – Contract Documents

L-2.2.1.1 SF1442 and Solicitation: Complete Blocks 14 -19, 20a– 20c, and 30a-30c of SF1442 and all fill-in clauses in solicitation Sections I – L.

L-2.2.1.2 SF30, Amendment Form (If used): Complete Blocks 8 and 15a – 15c for each amendment issued under this solicitation.

L-2.2.1.3 Clauses and Provisions: Offerors shall complete all areas contained in Administrative

Data of Section G, FAR Provision 52.219-28 in Section I, and all other clauses and provisions, including exceptions or deviations, within Sections I, K, and L, as applicable to the offeror.

L-2.2.1.4 Joint Ventures and Teaming / Partnering Agreements: Joint ventures and teaming or partnering agreements must be disclosed and comply with Section K and Section L, paragraphs

L-1.6 or L-1.7, as applicable, of the solicitation.

L-2.2.2 Volume II – Past Performance

L-2.2.2.1 Past Performance Information: Only references for relevant contracts are desired.

Submit original and one (1) copy.

L-2.2.2.2 Quality and satisfaction rating for contracts completed in the past five (5) 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 (similar in scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires). 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.

L-2.2.2.3 SAM.gov and CPARS, as well any other Government-sponsored information available may be utilized to help make a responsibility determination in accordance with FAR Subpart

9.104.

L-2.2.2.4 Performance Surveys: The government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror's performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFP. The government will use information submitted by the offeror and any other sources of information available to the

Government to assess present/past 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 five (5) years. Relevant contracts include efforts that have an award value of no less than

$500K with a minimum scope, magnitude and complexity of the seed project. The evaluation of past performance information shall take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have recent, relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition and when a teaming arrangement or joint venture is present. Provide the following information for each contract listed:

i. Company/Division name

ii. Product/Service

iii. Contracting Agency/Customer

iv. Contract Number

v. Contract Dollar Value

vi. Period of Performance

vii. Verified, up-to-date name, address & telephone number of the contracting officer

viii. Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

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

x. If recency or relevancy to the instant requirement is not readily apparent, it is the offeror’s responsibility to explain.

Performance Questionnaires: The offeror shall provide the government furnished questionnaire

(“Past Performance Questionnaire”) to those federal agencies and commercial customers where the offerors performances are deemed recent and relevant and direct them to return the completed questionnaires to the point of contact listed on the questionnaire. The evaluation of past performance information shall take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have recent, relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition and when a teaming arrangement or joint venture is present.

NOTE: PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES WILL NOT BE

ACCEPTED FROM THE OFFEROR; IT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE RATER. IT IS

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OFFEROR TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE RATER IN

ORDER TO ENSURE PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES ARE

SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNMENT.

L-2.2.2.5 Teaming Arrangement: If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past/present performance information on previous teaming arrangements with the 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.

L-2.2.2.6 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.

L-2.2.2.7 In accordance with 40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter III, Bonds, the bidder to whom award is made shall, within 10 calendar days after the date of award of any order exceeding $150K in value, furnish a Performance bond (Standard Form 25) and a Payment Bond (Standard Form 265a), each with good and sufficient surety or sureties acceptable to the Government; Payment Bonds only will be required for Orders over $35K but under $150K. A list of authorized sureties can be obtained at: http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/ The penal sum of the performance and payment bonds shall equal one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price. If the contract price increases by modification to the contract, an amount equal to

100% of the increase will be required

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

• Requirements of the RFP Price Schedules, Statement of Work (SOW), and government standards and regulations pertaining to the SOW.

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

http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/

• The page limitation for Part II of the proposal is 30 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.

• Format for proposal Part II shall be as follows:

a) A page is defined as one face of an 8 ½” x 11” sheet of paper containing information.

b) Typing shall not be less than 12 pitch.

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

L-2.2.3 Volume III- Price

L- 2.2.3.1 Price Information: A total price breakdown is required to be submitted via Attachment

J-1 “Seed Project - Repair Switchgear in Sub3 Area Bid Schedule”. Prices shall not extend past the second decimal point for unit and extended amounts. The proposed price shall include all personnel, supplies, services, management, overhead, other directs costs, G&A, and profit to fulfill the contractual requirements of the SOW and any attachments.

L- 2.2.3.2 Identify and include the company’s CAGE Code, UEI Number, and business-size standard under the applicable NAICS of 238210.

L- 2.2.3.3 SF1442 and Solicitation: Complete blocks 14 -19, 20a – 20c and 30a - 30c. of the

SF1442 as well as signing/acknowledging any amendments. In doing so, the offeror agrees to the contract terms.

L- 2.2.3.4 Representations and Certifications: You must include all Representations and

Certifications with your quote or reflect they are completed in SAM.gov.

L- 2.2.3.5 All offers shall remain valid for 180 calendar days.

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 BASIS FOR AWARD

M-1.1 This competitive acquisition shall utilize the Tradeoff procedures in accordance with

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.101-1 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award offers that will give the Air Force the greatest confidence they will best meet or exceed our requirements at a fair, reasonable, and affordable price, and in a way that shall be advantageous to the Government.

To arrive at a best value decision, evaluations of the factors described in this provision will be completed. While the Government shall strive for maximum objectivity, the best value tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgement is implicit throughout the selection process. Awards shall be made to the responsible offerors whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph M-2 below.

Tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered significantly more important than price.

The Government intends a target of three (3) contract awards as a result of this solicitation. The government reserves the right to award fewer than or more than the stated target number of contract awards.

Email correspondence conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors shall not constitute discussions per FAR Part 15. Offeror’s 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 shall not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. Offeror’s may be restricted to a short suspense (i.e., less than 24 hours) in responding to the Contracting Officer during any discussion period if necessary.

The Government shall evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for the seed project.

The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the prices are mathematically and materially unbalanced. Evaluation of options, if applicable, shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). As part of price evaluation, the government shall evaluate the offeror's total price from Attachment J-1 “Seed Project Bid Schedule.”

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.217-8 Option to Extend Services Nov 1999

52.217-5 Evaluation of Options Jul 1990

M-1.2 Evaluation Notices (ENs) and Final Proposal Revisions (FPR): The government intends to award without discussions with respective offerors. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to

ENs and the FPR shall be considered in making the decision. If the offeror's proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror's proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M-1.3 Rejection of Unreasonable Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, or contract terms and conditions, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M-1.4 Contractor Responsibility: In accordance with FAR 9.1, the Contracting Officer shall award contracts only to responsible vendors. No purchase or award shall be made unless the

Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. At the discretion of the contracting officer, the government may require acceptable evidence of the prospective contractor’s current sound financial status, as well as the ability to obtain required resources if the need arises. In regard to resources, the contractor must be prepared to present acceptable evidence of subcontracts, commitments or explicit arrangements that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, services, materials, other resources or personnel. Consideration of a prime contractor’s compliance with limitations on subcontracting shall be taken into account for the time period covered by the contract base period or quantities, plus option periods or quantities, if such options are considered when evaluating offers for award.

Pursuant to FAR 9.104-4, the contracting officer reserves the right to request adequate evidence of responsibility on the part of any prospective subcontractor(s). In the absence of information clearly indicating that the prospective contractor is responsible, the contracting officer shall make a determination of non-responsibility.

M-2 FACTORS AND RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

M-2.1 Factors: A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal shall be performed.

The Government’s evaluation shall be based on the following factors:

Factor 1: Past Performance

Factor 2: Price

M-2.2 Relative Importance: Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, past performance is significantly more important than cost or price considerations.

M-3 EVALUATION PROCESS: The evaluation process shall begin with a compliance review up to three (3) of the lowest priced offers to verify all proposals conform to the administrative requirements set forth in Section L, Paragraph L-2. In an effort to structure and streamline the evaluation process, conforming proposals shall then be ranked by proposed price for the project from lowest to highest and then evaluated for past performance. If the three (3) lowest evaluated priced offerors are determined to have an overall "Substantial Confidence" performance rating, that offer represents the best value for the Government and awards to those vendors will be made.

If the three (3) lowest priced evaluated offerors are determined not to have an overall "Substantial

Confidence" performance rating, evaluations shall continue (in ascending order by price) until a target of three offers are rated with "Substantial Confidence" or, until all offerors are evaluated.

The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value tradeoff award decision for a target of three (3) awards. The integrated assessment shall be used if the lowest three offerors where not evaluated with a “Substantial Confidence” or after all offerors have been evaluated. The integrated assessment consists of determining if a higher price “Substantial

Confidence” rating provides the best value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to award to a lower confidence rating after the integrated assessment is completed.

M-3.1 Past Performance Evaluation: The government shall evaluate the quality and extent of offeror’s performance based on the recency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance, all which shall be considered. Any effort submitted must be similar in scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity to this effort. These are combined to establish one (1) performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror. There are two (2) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency and relevancy. Past performance references and data of either party to a joint venture or teaming arrangement shall be considered to apply equally to the joint venture or teaming arrangement.

M-3.1.1 Recency: To be determined recent, offerors may submit up to three (3) project references that have been awarded, completed, or are ongoing within five (5) years from the date of this solicitation (SF 1442 Block 3). Past performance information that does not meet this requirement will not be evaluated.

M-3.1.2 Relevance: To be determined relevant, an effort must have an award value of no less than

$100K with a minimum scope, magnitude and complexity of the seed project. Complexity is defined as the ability to perform and manage several task orders at the same time and successfully perform similar or higher magnitudes than described in the solicitation. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the requirement described in the solicitation based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance.

Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The relevance ratings in Table 1 below shall be used when assessing offeror’s efforts.

Table 1- Past Performance Relevance Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

M-3.1.3 Performance Confidence Assessment: Efforts that are determined recent and relevant shall then receive a confidence assessment rating in accordance with Table 2 below. If teaming partners/joint ventures both have prime contractor experience, then their past performance rating shall be equal to a prime contractor. If the teaming partners/joint ventures have no prime contractor past performance, the past performance shall be evaluated less favorably. If a prime contractor submits past performance of a proposed subcontractor, the past performance information shall be evaluated less favorably than if submitted for the prime. In the case of offerors for which there is no or limited information on past contract, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and a performance confidence rating of “Neutral” shall be assigned. Confidence ratings of Substantial and Satisfactory confidence shall be rated more favorably than a “Neutral” confidence rating. As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the confidence ratings as described below shall be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if the lowest priced offeror does not receive a

“Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment.

Table 2- Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

M-3.2 Price Evaluation: 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 shall 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 cost data to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price. The government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures found in FAR Part 15.404-1(b) to ensure a fair and reasonable price. After a compliance review of the lowest priced offerors are accomplished, offerors whose total evaluated price is determined unreasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3) or unbalanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1) may not be considered for award. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror's proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the offeror.