Attachment 4 Sections L and M (Updated).pdf

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES

TO OFFERORS

1. General Information

1.1. Solicitation Type: This is a Request for Quotation (RFQ) conducted under RFO

12.201-1(a), Solicitation Procedures.

1.2. Project Title: Dyess AFB MUNS Vindicators.

1.3. Description of Requirement: The Government requires the installation of

Honeywell vindicators (V3) at Dyess AFB, Texas, as detailed in the Statement of Work

(SOW) and associated drawings and specifications, including all options.

1.4. Contract Type: The Government anticipates awarding a Firm-Fixed-Price contract.

However, the government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation at any point before an award is made. The government will not reimburse offers for any costs associated with preparation, or submittal of offers.

1.5. SAM Registration: Offerors are required to be registered in the System for Award

Management (SAM.gov) at the time of quote submission to be eligible for award. This procurement is a 100% Small Business Set-Aside under NAICS 561621.

1.6. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined to be in the Government’s best interest.

Offerors should submit their best terms from a technical and price standpoint in their initial quotation.

2. Instructions for Preparing Quotations

2.1. Submission Instructions:

2.1.1 Quotations shall be submitted electronically to the points of contact listed on the solicitation cover page no later than the date and time specified. The submission shall consist of three (3) separate volumes as described below.

2.2. Quotation Format: Quotations shall consist of the following separately attached documents:

2.2.1 Volume 1: Price Quotation (Mandatory)

2.2.1.1 Complete Attachment 7 - Pricing Schedule, including unit prices and extended amounts for all line items (Base Bid and Option Items).

2.2.1.2 Provide the total cost for all items.

2.3 Volume 2: Technical Approach (Mandatory)

2.3.1 The Technical volume must not contain any pricing information. It shall provide a clear and comprehensive narrative demonstrating the offeror’s capability to meet all requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW), including but not limited to the following:

2.3.1.1 Provide a proposed plan outlining key milestones and approach to work meeting all requirements as outlined in the Statement of

Work (SOW).

2.3.1.2 Provide a preliminary project schedule that identifies key milestones, deliverable dates, and a logical sequence of work, including timelines for installation, system testing (Phases 1, 2, and 3), and training. The schedule should demonstrate a clear plan to minimize disruption to normal operations and outline estimated lead times for installed equipment.

2.3.1.3 Describe your plan for addressing safety hazards, including training and the use of PPE, as outlined in the SOW.

2.3.1.4 A List of all Vindicator Specific equipment to be installed. All requirements for Vindicator equipment are outlined in the SOW.

2.3.1.5 The Offeror shall provide definitive proof that the technicians who will perform the installation and final certification are "certified

Honeywell technicians" as mandated by SOW. This shall be in the form of current, verifiable training certificates or an official letter from Honeywell confirming the certification status of the named individual(s).

2.3.1.6 All applicable Manufacturer, and contractor warranty's as mentioned in the SOW, shall be submitted.

2.4 Volume 3: Past Performance Information (Mandatory)

2.4.1 Provide a list of up to eight (8) recent and relevant contracts performed within the last five (5) years that are similar in scope, size, and complexity to the requirement detailed in the SOW. Projects involving IDS installation, fiber optic cabling, and work on federal installations are considered most relevant. For each reference, provide: Contract number

2.4.1.1 Customer Name, Point of Contact (name, title, phone, email)

2.4.1.2 Brief description of the work performed

2.4.1.3 Contract value

2.4.1.4 Period of performance

2.4.1.5 Assessment of the Contractor's performance (e.g., on time, within budget, quality of work)

2.4.1.6 Current contracts for similar projects at Dyess AFB, shall be submitted.

3. Page Limits:

3.1 Volume 2 (Technical Approach): Maximum 20 pages.

3.2 Volume 3 (Past Performance Information): Maximum 1 page per reference (up to

8 pages total).

4. Quotation Validity: Quotations must remain valid for a minimum of 90 days from the submission date

5. Best Value Determination: The Government will award to the offeror responsible whose quotation represents the best value to the Government, considering price, technical acceptability, and past performance.

6. Small Business Set-Aside: This procurement is 100% set aside for Small Business. Offerors must represent their size status in SAM.gov.

7. SAM Registration: All offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management

(SAM) at www.sam.gov, at time of quote submission to be eligible for award.

8. POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

(a) There is potential organizational conflict of interest (see RFO Subpart 9.5, Organizational and

Consultant Conflicts of Interest) due to (state the nature of the proposed conflict). Accordingly:

(1) Restrictions are needed to ensure that (state the nature of the proposed restraint and the applicable time period).

(2) As a part of the proposal, the offeror shall provide the contracting officer with complete information of previous or ongoing work that is in any way associated with the contemplated acquisition.

(b) If award is made to the offeror, the resulting contract may include an organizational conflict of interest limitation applicable to subsequent Government work, at either a prime contract level, at any subcontract tier, or both. During evaluation of proposals, the Government may, after discussions with the offeror and consideration of ways to avoid the conflict of interest, insert a special provision in the resulting contract which shall disqualify the offeror from further consideration for award of future contracts.

(c) The organizational conflict of interest clause included in this solicitation may be modified or deleted during negotiations.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. Basis for Award

1.1 The Government intends to award a contract to the responsible offeror whose quotation represents the best value to the Government using a trade-off process. All non-price factors (Technical and Past Performance), when combined, are approximately equal in importance to Price. To be considered for award, a quotation must receive a rating of

"Acceptable" or higher for the Technical factor. The Government reserves the right to http://www.sam.gov/ award to a higher-priced offeror if the perceived benefits of a superior Technical rating and/or Past Performance record are determined to be worth the additional cost.

2. Factor 1: Price

2.1 The Government will evaluate price by comparing the total price for all line items

(Base Bid and Option Items) as submitted in Attachment 7: Pricing Schedule.

2.2 The Government will also evaluate the reasonableness of individual line item prices.

2.3 An unrealistically low price may be viewed as an indication of a lack of understanding of the requirements or an unacceptable level of risk.

3. Factor 2: Technical Acceptability

3.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror's technical approach based on its demonstration of a clear understanding of the requirements and its ability to successfully perform the work. The technical approach will be rated using the following:

3.1.1 Outstanding - Quote demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

3.1.2 Good - Quote demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

3.1.3 Acceptable - Quote meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

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

3.1.5 Unacceptable - Quote does not meet requirements of the solicitation, contains one or more deficiencies, and is un-awardable.

3.1.6 A Strength is an aspect of a quote that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government.

3.1.7 A Deficiency is a material failure of a quote to meet a Government requirement.

3.2 Areas of Evaluation for Technical Acceptability:

3.2.1 Provide a proposed plan outlining key milestones and approach to work meeting all requirements as outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW). Demonstrates a clear understanding of the SOW, drawings, and specifications. Any applicable manufacturer, and/or contractor warranty must be included.

3.2.2 Provide a preliminary project schedule that identifies key milestones, deliverable dates, and a logical sequence of work, including timelines for installation, system testing (Phases 1, 2, and 3), and training. The schedule should demonstrate a clear plan to minimize disruption to normal operations and outline estimated lead times for installed equipment.

3.2.3 Describe your plan for addressing safety hazards, including training and the use of PPE, as outlined in the SOW.

3.2.4 A List of all Vindicator Specific equipment to be installed. All requirements for

Vindicator equipment are outlined in the SOW.

3.2.5 The Offeror shall provide definitive proof that the technicians who will perform the installation and final certification are "certified Honeywell technicians" as mandated by SOW. This shall be in the form of current, verifiable training certificates or an official letter from Honeywell confirming the certification status of the named individual(s).

3.3 Factor 3: Past Performance

3.4 The Government will evaluate the offeror's past performance based on the information provided in the Past Performance Information volume and any other information available to the Government (e.g., CPARS, SPRS).

3.5 The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror's ability to successfully perform the required work based on its previous experience.

3.6 Past performance will be rated as follows:

3.6.1 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.

3.6.2 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.

3.6.3 Neutral: No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror is a new entrant. A neutral rating will be assigned in these cases.

3.6.4 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.

3.6.5 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.

3.7 In determining the relevancy of past performance information, the Government will consider the following factors:

3.7.1 Similarity of the work performed to the requirements of this solicitation.

3.7.2 Work performed with the Federal Government.

3.7.3 Contract dollar value.

3.7.4 Complexity of the work.

3.7.5 Recency of the performance.

3.7.6 Ability of contractor to complete work in accordance with Period of

Performances.

3.8 The Government may consider past performance information from any available source, including but not limited to:

3.8.1 References provided by the offeror

3.8.2 CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System)

3.8.3 Other government databases

3.8.4 Information obtained through market research

4. Basis for Award

The Government will consider the evaluation results for all factors to determine which quotation represents the best value. The best value decision is a trade-off between price, technical acceptability, and past performance. A technically acceptable quotation with a strong past performance record may warrant paying a higher price than a lower-priced quotation with a weaker technical approach or a less favorable past performance record. The Government may select other than the lowest priced quote or the quote with the highest past performance.