Attachment_6_-_Sections_L&M.pdf

FA4528-19-R-A012

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS:

A. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein.

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. 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. The response shall consist of three (3) separate parts, Part I –Technical Proposal, Part II - Past Performance, and Part III - Price Proposal.

B. The Contracting Officer (CO) has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the CO will review this determination and if, in the CO’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional price information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the CO to determine the reasonableness of the price.

C. Specific Instructions:

1. PART I – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL:

a. Limited to no more than 10 pages as defined in paragraph (D). Technical Proposals will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis by subfactor. The page limitation includes any cover page, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc., but excludes any table of contents or list of acronyms (if utilized). Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitations shall not be read but shall be removed and either retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation, or, sent back to the offeror.

b. The written technical proposal shall be clear, concise, and include all the information required by this provision in sufficient detail for effective evaluation. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities, work processes, facilities, and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s technical proposal. The written technical proposal shall address the following subfactor to describe the offeror’s proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in the Statement of Work to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable.

Subfactor 1 - Work Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s work plan.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal provides a Gantt Chart (or similar) highlighting a breakdown of the items/tasks (milestones) identified in the Specifications / Drawings and how the offeror plans on accomplishing each individual task within the performance period specified for the project. Additionally, the offeror shall clearly and thoroughly depict the critical path to complete the project within the performance period.

2. PART II – PAST PERFORMANCE: Will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

a. A Past Performance Information Form (PPIF), Attachment 7 is provided with the solicitation for offerors to send to a maximum of three (3) references of their choice. PPIF references who have returned the questionnaires will be used in the past performance evaluation. Please note that the PPIF will only be accepted if it is received directly from the reference.

b. The US Government will consider and evaluate offeror's past performance information, to include the

PPIF, which are deemed recent and relevant for the requirements of this RFP. The Government will also use information submitted by the offeror and other sources, such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess performance. Recent and Relevant is defined in the subparagraph below:

i. Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

ii. Relevant performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactor and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to:

• The offeror performed as the prime contractor for renovation and alteration projects with a contract dollar value of at least $500,000.00 and similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the effort required by this solicitation.

• In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The PPIFs and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

c. Teaming arrangements are characterized by two or more business entities that are working together under the representation of one of the existing business entities for the duration of a contract. A teaming arrangement is not a formal merger of two or more business entities. The Government recognizes the validity and integrity of teaming arrangements as detailed in FAR 9.6. All offerors are encouraged to review FAR 9.6 to acquaint themselves with its details. Since the Government can only determine the responsibility of the prime contractor per FAR 9.604(b), IAW FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, offerors must identify in their offer any teaming arrangement to be considered and completely identify the relationships/responsibilities of the teaming members, to include relevant and recent past/present performance information on a maximum of three (3) projects teamed with the same partner. If unable to submit three (3) past/present performance information questionnaires with the same partner, submit past/present performance information on the prime contractor for a maximum of three (3) projects total.

d. Joint ventures are characterized as two or more business entities that have been merged to create one business entity with equal responsibility during the course of the contract. If this is a first time Joint Venture, please submit past/present performance information on a maximum of three (3) projects total by any business entity in the arrangement as identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) above.

e. Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s written consent. Provide a letter of consent to release past performance information to the prime offeror from each subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.

f. Return completed Past Performance Information Forms NLT the offeror due date and time specified in block 13 of the solicitation SF1442. Have PPIFs sent to:

5 CONS/PKA

Attn: MSgt Chad Michaud & Rachel Williams, FA4528-19-R-A012 165 Missile Ave Minot AFB, ND 58705

-OR-

chad.michaud@us.af.mil and rachel.williams.26@us.af.mil

3. PART III – PRICE PROPOSAL: Submit original and one (1) copy.

a. Complete blocks 14 through 20C of the RFP Section A, SF1442. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in RFP Sections A through K. These sections constitute the model contract. The offeror shall submit only those pages that require a fill-in.

b. Insert proposed unit and extended prices in Section B for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN).

c. Complete the Construction Cost Breakdown (Attachment 9). It shall be utilized for evaluation purposes only and shall not be a resultant part of the contract. Submit as Microsoft Excel Document.

d. Other than certified cost or pricing data may be requested by the Government.

D. General Information:

1. Format for proposal parts I, II, and III shall be as follows:

a. The proposals will be 8 1/2” x 11” paper or standard A4 paper, except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams, which may not exceed 11” x 17”.

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

c. Typing shall not be less than 10 point.

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

e. Electronic Submission – IAW FAR 52.215-1 – Instructions to Offerors, emailed proposals will be accepted. Emailed proposals must be sent to rachel.williams@us.af.mil and chad.michaud@us.af.mil.

Note email size must not exceed 10 MB. If the proposal is more than 10 MB, please submit as email 1 of 2, etc. Format must be a Word Document, PDF, or Excel sheet. The offeror must request and obtain an acknowledgement of receipt for electronic submission.

f. A letter of authorization for the Contracting Officer to verify offeror’s financial responsibility (Attachment 8). Include name, address and phone numbers for financial institutions to include points of contact.

g. Acknowledgement of all amendments to the solicitation IAW the instructions on the SF30 (amendment form).

2. A pre-proposal site visit will be conducted as specified in 52.236-27 Alternate 1.

3. Offerors should allow sufficient time to arrive and submit the proposals to the Contracting Office prior to the closing time. Late proposals will be processed IAW the provisions established in FAR 15.208 “Late Submission, Modifications, and Withdrawals of Proposals”. If gate access is not granted, please contact the CO immediately. The contractors are responsible for coordinating and processing gate pass requests in a timely manner. The USAF shall not be held accountable. The USAF shall not be responsible for delays due to in-processing or out-processing the base.

4. All contractors’ questions in response to this solicitation must be emailed to rachel.williams@us.af.mil and chad.michaud@us.af.mil no later than 11 April 2019 at 1400 CDT. The US Government will not be held responsible for answering any questions after this time. All questions/answers resulting from this solicitation will be posted to Federal Business Opportunities.

5. This section provides general guidance for preparing proposals. Offerors’ proposals must include all data mailto:chad.michaud@us.af.mil mailto:rachel.williams.26@us.af.mil mailto:rachel.williams@us.af.mil mailto:chad.michaud@us.af.mil mailto:wade.vinje@us.af.mil mailto:wade.vinje@us.af.mil mailto:rachel.williams@us.af.mil mailto:chad.michaud@us.af.mil and information requested by this solicitation and must be submitted and conducted in strict accordance with these instructions. Non-conformance with the specific organization, content, and page limitations may result in misevaluation of proposals or, depending on the magnitude of the nonconformance the proposals may be eliminated from further consideration.

6. The proposal must be completed and returned NLT the offeror due date and time specified in block 13 of the solicitation SF1442.

To: 5 CONS/PKA Attn: MSgt Chad Michaud and Rachel Williams, FA4528-19-R-A012

165 MISSILE AVENUE

MINOT AFB ND 58705-5027

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS

A. SOURCE SELECTION

1. Basis for Contract Award: This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 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 C dated 31 March 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 dated 25 May 2018. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.1, as supplemented, 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 and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

2. Number of Contracts to Be Awarded: The Government intends to award one (1) contract to renovate the FSC Office, storage room and bathrooms at five (5) Missile Alert Facilities (MAFs).

3. Discussions: The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or opportunity for proposal revisions. 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. Offerors may be required to respond with their FPR within 24 hours. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to re-evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

4. 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 or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

5. Proposal Evaluation Approach:

a. Step 1: Evaluate all timely proposals for completeness.

b. Step 2: Evaluate all proposals for technical acceptability.

c. Step 3: Assess past performance for each offeror.

d. Step 4: Evaluate all proposals to determine whether the price is fair and reasonable (IAW FAR 15.404 & FAR 31.201-3), then rank by Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

e. Step 5: The Government may request clarifications, communications, or discussions for proposals through Evaluation Notice(s).

f. Step 6: The Source Selection Evaluation Board will compile a Source Selection Decision Document for the SSA to assess the integrated best value to the Government and upon contract clearance, select the successful offeror.

6. Responsibility: In addition to the evaluation factors noted above, the offeror must be determined responsible according to the standards in FAR 9.1 Responsible Prospective Contractors.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors: The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Work Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2. Technical Factor: The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Offerors that fail to clearly address any of the following requirements may receive an Unacceptable rating for this subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible 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.

Table 1 Technical Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Work Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s work plan.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal provides a Gantt Chart (or similar) highlighting a breakdown of the items/tasks (milestones) identified in the Specifications / Drawings and how the offeror plans on accomplishing each individual task within the performance period specified for the project. Additionally, the offeror shall clearly and thoroughly depict the critical path to complete the project within the performance period.

3. Past Performance Factor: The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

a. Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

Table C-2 – Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Rating Description

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. (See note below.)

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.

Note: 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 be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance.

In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

b. Evaluation Process: The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the solicitation requirements. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to:

the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and commercial sources.

i. Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

ii. Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to the offeror that performed as the prime contractor for renovation and alteration efforts with a contract dollar value of at least $500,000.00 and having similar project size, complexity and function, utilizing trades relevant to those required by this solicitation. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The Past Performance Information Forms (PPIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Table 3 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

iii. Performance Quality Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements.

Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table 4 – Past Performance Quality Assessment Quality Assessment Description

Satisfactory During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Unsatisfactory

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

Not Available Quality and/or performance information is not available.

c. Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table C-2).

4. Price Factor: Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable may not be considered for award.

a. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes based upon the total price proposed for the requirement.

b. Reasonableness: The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair pursuant to FAR

15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

c. The Government shall rank all offers by total proposed price. If at any time during this competition the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist, offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness of price.