SABER_Draft_Inst_to_Offerors(17Jan2014).pdf

FA5000-14-R-0022 - Draft Instruction to Offerors – 17 January 2014

Draft Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors

PROPOSAL PREPARATION 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, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. 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 - Price Proposal, and Part II – Technical Proposal, and Part III - Past Performance Information.

B. 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 cost information 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 “other than certified cost or pricing data” to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and completeness of the price.

C. Specific Instructions:

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

(a) Complete blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20A, 20B, 20C of the RFP Section A, SF1442. 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 coefficient(s) in the Pricing Schedule Attachment 1 as listed in Section J for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) or SubClin (SCLIN), for Base Year only. Proposal prices must be entered for all items of the Proposal Schedule. Coefficients are factors that are multiplied against the standard unit prices in calculating delivery order (D.O.) prices. Coefficients include, but are not limited to,cost elements of: overhead, profit, minimum design costs, general and administrative expenses, quality control, bond premiums, Federal, State and local permits, site investigation, and any other contractor incurred costs. Coefficients are to be carried out not more than two (2) decimal points. By proposing a coefficient in the Pricing Schedule Attachment 1 the offeror agrees that this coefficient will apply to the Base Year and any Options the Government exercises.

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

2. PART II – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL – Limited to no more than 30 pages. Submit original and two (2) copies

(a) The Technical Proposal shall be clear-concise. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but shall address how the offeror intends to meet the requirements. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/af_afmc/far/FAR15.DOC%23b154062 http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/formslibrary.do?viewType=DETAIL&formId=4E179AB32AF6652285256A260054D101

(b) The Technical Proposal shall be prepared with the evaluation criteria for award set forth in

Section M of this solicitation.

Subfactor 1-Offeror’s Plan for Responding to Numerous Concurrent Request for Proposals:

Typically, the majority of task order request for proposals are issued in the last quarter of the fiscal year.

Note-Attachment 2, which lists historical task order information. The offeror shall submit a plan, which describes the capability and capacity of the offeror to respond to the issuance of numerous concurrent request for proposals through award in accordance with Section C Statement of Work (SOW) Paragraph C302 “Ordering Procedures” during periods of increased demand, such as fiscal year end.

Subfactor 2- Proposed On-Site Staffing Plan:

The offeror shall submit an organizational chart and plan to provide adequate organization, onsite staffing, and engineering support. The proposed plan must clearly show the logical lines of authority from Program Manager to subcontracting management, demonstrate technical sufficiency, including site superintendents and quality control. Onsite staff shall include a brief job description, qualifications, responsibilities and decision-making authority of each member in accordance with the Statement of Work (SOW) Paragraph C110 “Performance of Work by the Contractor”.

3. PART III – PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION - Limited to no more than 3 pages per contract listed. Only references for relevant past efforts/contracts are desired. Submit original plus two

(2) copies.

(a) 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 demonstrate 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.

(b) Past Performance Questionnaire: 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 other sources of information available to the Government to assess past performance. Provide a list of no more than ten (10), of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of this RFP. Send a copy of the past performance survey (Attachment 3 to the solicitation) to each agency and customer with instructions to complete the survey and send them to the address as directed on the survey to arrive not later than the closing date/time of the solicitation.

The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. Furnish 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, FAX & 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) Explain in sufficient detail which aspects of each contract are deemed relevant to the proposed effort.

(xi) Indicate if the offeror was the prime contractor or a subcontractor and provide the name of the prime contractor if the offeror was a subcontractor. Indicate the percentage of the project actually performed by the offeror and the type of work that was performed. If the offeror performed as part of a teaming arrangement or joint venture, indicate the names of all team members and the work performed by each. If necessary, the offeror may include additional comments to clarify the relevancy of the project.

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 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. To be considered as a teaming arrangement, both partners in the proposed arrangement shall have staff located at the on-site JBER office. In addition, a clear description of how the partnership arrangement will work; chain of responsibilities, line of authority and the personnel within the on-site JBER Management Team who have authority to speak for and bind the partnership in matters relating to this offer.

(c) 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.

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

1. Requirements of the RFP (Contract Line Items Numbers (CLINs) & Technical Specifications (SOW)), and government standards and regulations pertaining to the SOW.

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

3. 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.

4. Format for proposal Part II and III shall be as follows:

(a) The proposals will be 8 1/2” x 11” 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 12 pitch.

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

E. General Information

1. Information regarding submission of proposals: Hand carried or mailed proposals must be delivered to the following address:

673rd Contracting Squadron Attn: Mr. Chris Vance 10480 Sijan Ave, Suite 234 Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska 99506

2. The sealed envelope or 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.

3. Offerors are cautioned that Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson has visitor control procedures requiring individuals not affiliated with the installation to obtain a visitor pass prior to entrance. SOME DELAY SHOULD BE EXPECTED WHEN HAND-CARRYING PROPOSALS. Offerors should allow sufficient time to obtain a visitor pass and arrive at Suite 234 prior to the time specified for receipt. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c) (3).

Draft Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to price considerations. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluated factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Technical Acceptability Factor. The government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

The Technical Rating Definitions are as follows:

Acceptable: Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation within the Technical Acceptability Factor.

Unacceptable: The proposal does not clearly meet minimum requirements of the solicitation within the Technical Acceptability Factor.

1. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. Once deemed acceptable, all technical proposals are considered equal. Any offeror receiving an “Unacceptable” rating on the technical evaluation will not advance to the tradeoff process and will not be considered for award.

2. Any subfactor determined unacceptable will render the entire Technical Proposal as unacceptable.

Upon final determination that a proposal is unacceptable, the Contracting Officer (CO) shall promptly notify the firm submitting the proposal that it will not be considered for award and shall indicate in general terms the basis for the determination.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following Subfactors:

Subfactor 1- Offeror’s Plan for Responding to Numerous Concurrent Request for Proposals: This subfactor is met when offeror’s proposed plan demonstrates the capability and capacity of the offeror to respond to the issuance of numerous concurrent requests for proposals through award based on the historical data provided in accordance with Section C Statement of Work (SOW) Paragraph C302 “Ordering Procedures” and the requirements of Section L and the solicitation.

Subfactor 2- Proposed On-site Staffing Plan: This subfactor is met when offeror’s proposed onsite staffing plan demonstrates a clear understanding and an efficient and executable plan to meet contract requirements by providing adequate organization, qualified onsite staffing, and engineering support to respond to daily operations and interactions with Government personnel in accordance with Section C Statement of Work (SOW) Paragraph C110 “Performance of Work by the Contractor” and the requirements of Section L and the solicitation.

B. Price Evaluation Factor. Next the government shall rank all technically Acceptable or offer(s) with correction potential by price, including any Tiered Pricing Reduction Factors if applicable. Offers shall be ranked according to their Total Evaluated Price, including any Tiered Pricing Reduction Factors offered in accordance with the Pricing Schedule Evaluation Worksheet.

An offeror’s proposed Overall Price Coefficient will be determined by applying the weighting factors identified in the Pricing Schedule Evaluation Worksheet for each Contract Line Item Number to determine the weighted coefficient value for each. The weighted coefficient values will be added together to determine the Overall Contractor Coefficient. The Overall Contractor Coefficient will then be multiplied by the Tiered Pricing Reduction Factors and their weighting factors to determine the weighted coefficient value for each. The Overall Contractor Coefficient will then be determined by adding these weighted coefficient values. To determine the Total Evaluated Price the Overall Contractor Coefficient will be multiplied by the Base Year Maximum Contract Value ($20M). The Price evaluation will consist of ranking an offeror based on their Total Evaluated Price derived from the Pricing Schedule Evaluation Worksheet. The price evaluation will document reasonableness and affordability of the offeror’s proposed Overall Contractor Coefficient. Any offer may be rejected if it is unreasonable as to price coefficient. The Contracting Officer may require an offeror to provide additional information to establish the reasonableness of any coefficients proposed.

C. Performance Confidence Assessment Factor. The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror (2) past performance information obtained from questionnaires, and (3) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. Recent performance in contracts within the last three (3) years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation. Performance Confidence assessment will be based on:

1. The contractor’s ability to perform work encompassing the broad range of maintenance, repair and minor construction work that incorporates a majority of the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) Divisions 02000 through 19000.

2. The offeror’s ability to develop multiple project proposals within a two (2) week period.

3. The offeror’s ability to perform multiple concurrent projects.

4. The offeror’s ability to meet project cost, quality standards and schedule.

5. The offeror’s ability to complete work above +/- 60 degrees Latitude.

D. “Relevant” performance is defined in Table 1. Past Performance Relevancy Rating (See Below).

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in Table 2. Performance Confidence Assessments. Past Performance regarding predecessor companies or subcontractor that will perform major aspects of the requirement will not be rated as highly as the past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

Table 1. Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Rating Definition

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.

E. In evaluating past performance, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

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.

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.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

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.

F. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L.

Offerors 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 will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

G. The government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

H. Integrated Assessment: In order to be considered for award, the offeror’s technical proposal must be rated as “Acceptable”. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest price offer if the lowest priced offeror is judged to have a performance rating of “Satisfactory Confidence” or lower. In that event, the Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision.