11. Amended 52.212-1 and -2.pdf

55th Contracting Squadron RFQ FA4600-20-Q-0036

COMBINED SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATION

MODULAR FIRING RANGE

FA4600-20-Q-0036-0003

Addendum FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors–Commercial Items:

To ensure timely and equitable evaluation of the quotation, the offeror must follow the instructions contained herein. The quote must be complete, self-sufficient, and respond directly to the requirements of this solicitation.

Vendors must be currently registered in the System for Award Management (https://sam.gov) and agree to remain registered while performing services on Offutt AFB, NE. The vendor’s response shall consist of a:

1. Price Quotation

2. Fill-In Clauses/Provisions

3. Signed Amendments

4. Bonds

5. Technical Package

1. Price Quotation: Vendors shall provide pricing for Line Items 0001 and OPTION 0002.

Line Item 0001: Complete the unit price and total price for Line Item 0001.

Line Item 0002: Complete the quantity and total price for Line Item 0002.

The extended amount for each Line Item must equal the unit price multiplied by the number of units. It is imperative the mathematical calculations are correct. Numeric rounding shall be limited to two decimal places. The Government will add the total for Line items 0001 and 0002 to determine the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each vendor. Vendors should include the following in their price proposals: a) Discount terms offered (if applicable) and b) Contractor’s name, address, and CAGE code.

2. Fill-In Clauses/Provisions: Vendors are required to complete all clauses/provisions that require Fill-ins and submit them with their quote. Note: For 52.212-3, If the Offeror has completed the annual representations and certification electronically in the System for Award Management (SAM) accessed through https://www.sam.gov only paragraph (b) of the provision is required.

3. Amendments: Vendors must acknowledge all amendments to this solicitation (if Amendments are issued).

4. Bonds: Bonding is required based upon the value of the site preparation CLIN proposal price as follows:

Bid Bond of 20% is required over $150,000.00

Payment Bond is required over $150,000.00

55th Contracting Squadron RFQ FA4600-20-Q-0036

Performance Bond over $150,000.00

5. Technical Package. Vendors will submit a Technical Package consisting of three parts: a) Preliminary Design, b) Gantt Chart, and c) Narrative.

Preliminary Design. The preliminary design submitted shall be in accordance with the Statement of Work (SOW) Section 4.1.

Gantt Chart. The Gantt chart submitted shall be in accordance with the SOW, Section 4.2.

Narrative. The narrative will be on 8.5” x 11” sized document, with 12 pt Times New Roman font, 1 inch margins, single spaced, and no more than 2 pages. The narrative should describe how the vendor intends to provide the MFR to the Government while meeting all specifications in the SOW and UFC 4-179-02.

Interchanges: The Government intends to evaluate quotes and award a contract without interchanges. Therefore, the vendor’s initial quote should contain the vendor’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. If the Contracting Officer determines that it is in the best interest of the Government, the Government may conduct interchanges with one, some, none, or all vendors at its discretion. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest;

accept other than the lowest offer; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received.

Wage Determination: Please see https://www.wdol.gov for the current Wage Determination.

Construction Type: Building State: NE County: Sarpy

Magnitude of Construction (CLIN 0002): Pursuant to FAR 36.204 the magnitude of this project is: (f) Between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000.

Please ensure quotes are valid for 30 days.

RFQ due date/time: 3 September 2020, at 12:00 PM (Central Standard Time).

Email to: Capt Jacqueline Davis at jacqueline.davis.16@us.af.mil and 2d Lt Eledys Breighner at eledys.breighner@us.af.mil.

Mail/Hand deliver to: ATTN: Capt Jacqueline Davis or 2d Lt Eledys Breighner

55 CONS

106 Peacekeeper Lane, Ste 2N3 Offutt AFB, NE 68113

Note: If proposals are mailed or hand delivered, an electronic version of all documents must be provided at time of submission. Beware, “.zip” files are not an acceptable format for the Air Force Network and will not go through government

55th Contracting Squadron RFQ FA4600-20-Q-0036 email systems.

THIS MUST BE SENT TO THE E-MAIL ADDRESSES AS STATED ABOVE, OR THE

ADDRESS IF MAILING. DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY OTHER MEANS WILL BE

CONSIDERED NONRESPONSIVE. You may wish to place a read/deliver receipt.

(End of provision)

FAR Provision 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items (OCT 2014)

Pursuant to FAR 12.602 contract award will be made using Simplified Acquisition Procedures in accordance with FAR 13.106.

The Government intends to evaluate quotes and award a contract without interchanges. Therefore, the vendor’s initial quote should contain the vendor’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. If the Contracting Officer determines that it is in the best interest of the Government, the Government may conduct interchanges with one, some, none, or all vendors at its discretion.

The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest; accept other than the lowest offer; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received.

(1) The Government will evaluate all quotes in a six-step process.

Step 1: Evaluate all quotations for responsiveness.

Step 2: Order all responsive quotations based upon vendor’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) from lowest to highest.

Step 3: Evaluate the two lowest quotes for technical capability.

(a) If the Government has at least one technically capable quote, move to Step 4.

(b) If the Government does not have at least one technically capable quote, repeat Step 3 with remaining quotes.

Step 4: Evaluate the lowest, technically capable vendor(s)’ price(s).

Step 5: Evaluate the lowest, technically capable vendor(s)’ past performance(s).

Step 6: Make a decision based on technical, past performance and price evaluations. Award will be made to the lowest priced technically capable vendor with acceptable pricing and acceptable past performance.

(2) The lowest price vendor(s) will be evaluated based upon the following:

(a) Technical: The vendor will be evaluated on technical capability and will be rated “capable” or “deficient”. The vendor’s technical package must be rated as technically capable to be eligible for award. In order to be rated technically capable, the vendor must demonstrate in their Technical Package that they are capable of designing, manufacturing

55th Contracting Squadron RFQ FA4600-20-Q-0036 and installing the MFR in accordance with the SOW and UFC 4-179-02. The Government will review only the Technical Package to evaluate the capability of the vendor. The Government will review all three elements of the technical package and assign an overall technical rating.

Table 1. Technical Rating Adjectival Rating

Description

Capable Vendor’s technical package demonstrates that the vendor is capable of meeting the requirements of the SOW.

Deficient Vendor’s technical package does not demonstrate that the vendor is capable of meeting the requirements of the SOW

(b) Price: The vendor’s price will be evaluated and will be rated “acceptable” or “unacceptable”. Award will be made to the lowest priced technically capable vendor with acceptable pricing and acceptable past performance.

(i) Reasonableness. Prices will be evaluated for price reasonableness utilizing one or more of the methods in FAR 13.106-2. For a vendor to receive the award prices must be determined to be fair and reasonable.

(ii) Realism. Prices will be evaluated for price realism. The Government will assess whether a vendor’s low price reflects a lack of understanding of the contract requirements or risk inherent in a vendor’s proposed approach.

(iii) Unbalanced Pricing. Prices will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. A quote may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(iv) Table 2. Price Rating Adjectival Rating

Description

Acceptable Vendor’s price is fair and reasonable, is realistic and balanced.

Unacceptable Vendor’s price is deficient. It is either unreasonable, unrealistic, unbalanced, or any combination of the three.

(c) Past Performance: The vendor will be evaluated on Past Performance, and will be rated “acceptable” or “unacceptable”.

(i) SPRS. The Contracting officer will use the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) application (https://piee.eb.mil/) in the evaluation of suppliers’ past performance in accordance with DFARS 213.106-2(b)(i). The quality and delivery classifications identified for a supplier in SPRS will be used by the contracting officer to evaluate a supplier’s past performance. The contracting officer will use the vendors’ CAGE code to consider the vendor’s past performance history for the product or service code (PSC) 5410, Prefabricated and Portable Buildings.

(ii) Recency. Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years from the

55th Contracting Squadron RFQ FA4600-20-Q-0036 issuance date of the solicitation.

(iii) Relevancy. Relevant past performance include Modular Firing Ranges (with or without site preparation) delivered to commercial or Federal customers. The size of relevant firing ranges would be between 10 and 18 lanes.

(iv) Unknown Past Performance. In the case of a supplier without a record of recent or relevant past performance history in SPRS for the FSC/PSC of the supplies being purchased, and CAGE code, the supplier will receive an “acceptable” rating for past performance. According to DFARS 213.106-2(b)(i)(c), in the case of a supplier without a record of relevant past performance history in SPRS for the FSC or PSC of the supplies being purchased, the supplier may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for its past performance history. Therefore, the vendor shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

(v) Table 3. Past Performance Rating Adjectival Rating

Description

Acceptable

Based on the vendor’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the vendor will successfully perform the required effort, or the vendor’s performance record is unknown. (See paragraph (iv) above)

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

(3) Options. The Government will evaluate quotes for award purposes by adding the total price for the option to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that a quote is unacceptable if the option price is significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of the option shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option.

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

(5) A vendor must be determined to be responsible by the Contracting Officer in order to be eligible for award. Responsibility is described in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 9.1, “Responsible Prospective Contractors.” Part of the determination addresses financial capability. Please provide the names, addresses and points of contact for all financial institution organizations utilized to determine if contractor has adequate financial resources to perform the contract or the ability to obtain them to include written authority to contact the provided financial institution.

(End of provision)