Combo_Flag_Display.pdf

Combined Synopsis- Solicitation for Commercial Items (lAW FAR 12.603)

FROM: 766th Specialized Contracting Squadron (SCONS/PKZ) 90 G. Street, Building 1201 Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI 96853

17-Aug-15

SUBJECT: Hickam Flag Display Case at BLDG 1102 on Joint Base Pearl Harbor - Hickam

(JBPHH)

1. This is a combined synopsis/solicitation prepared in accordance with Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; quotes are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. This is not to be construed as a commitment by the Government. All information is to be submitted at no cost to the Government.

2. The solicitation will be issued as a Request for Proposal (RFP) under the solicitation number FA5215-15-R-0011

3. This solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through the Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 2005-83 as of 03 Aug 2015, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Publication Notice (DPN) 20150626 and Air Force Acquisition Circular (AFAC) 2015-0406.

4. This acquisition is a total Small Business Set-aside in regards to size standards. The applicable NAICS is 337215 "Showcase, partition, shelving, and locker manufacturing," and the small business size standard is 500 employees.

5. Final Proposal Due Date: 16 Sep 2015, I :00 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time (HST).

6. A site visit will be conducted on 2 Sep. 2015 at I :00 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time (HST).

It is strongly encouraged that all interested parties attend. The site visit will be held at HQ PACAF, building I 102 at Wing N Ist floor at the Courtyard of Heroes, on Joint Base Pearl Harbor - Hickam (JBPHH).

7. If you plan to attend the sitevisit please RSVP no later than 31 Aug 2015, 3:00 HST. To RSVP please email:

Contracting Officer: MSgt Brian Hendrix, brian.hendrix@us.af.mil Contract Specialist: A IC Jake Hartzog, jake.hartzog@us.af.mil Contract Specialist: 2Lt Evan Miller, evan.miller. I 5@us.af.mil

8. All questions shall be submitted electronically via email to the following recipients:

Contracting Officer: MSgt Brian Hendrix, brian.hendrix@us.af.mil Contract Specialist: AIC Jake Hartzog, jake.hartzog@us.af.mil

War-winning capabilities ... on time, on cost mailto:brian.hendrix@us.af.mil mailto:jake.hartzog@us.af.mil mailto:5@us.af.mil mailto:brian.hendrix@us.af.mil mailto:jake.hartzog@us.af.mil

9. Questions Due Date: 08 Sep 2015, I :00 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time (HST).

10. Offerors are required to submit a written Technical ProposaL Price Proposal, and Past Performance to Government officials for the purposes of acquiring supplies and/or services from the Contractor(s) that is fully cognizant of the scope of this requirement and has the capability to complete all requirements described in the solicitation.

Proposals which merely offer to conduct a program in accordance with the requirements of the Government's scope of work will not be eligible/or award.

II. FORMATTING

Page size 8.5 by II inches with I inch margins. Paragraphs single spaced. Minimum font size/style 10 point Times New Roman font for Text, 9 point font in the Arial family for Tables, and 8 point font in the Arial family for Graphics. Tables and graphics may be landscape; all other text must be portrait.

If the offeror uses a different format (font size, margin, etc.), the government reserves the right to adjust the proposal to fit the parameters of the format as stated in the RFP, and if this results in the proposal exceeding the page limitations in anyone area, the government will not consider those excess pages.

The below table shows the page limits to which offerors' submissions must adhere.

Volume Section Page limit

1 TransmittallCover Leiter I

Section Executive Summary I

Section Technical Proposal 10

2 Price Proposal 2

3 Past Performance 15

12. TRANSMITTAL AND COVER LETTER

The offeror's transmittal and cover letter for the proposal must contain the name, phone number, and e-mail address of the person to be contacted concerning any matter related to the solicitation. 766 SCONS/PKZ may, for example, contact that individual to schedule and make arrangements for the offeror's discussion meetings, if necessary.

Include the following information in your proposal: .

a. Duns & Bradstreet (DUNS) number and Tax Identification Number (TIN);

b. Company Name mailing address, and website address;

c. Date submitted and proposal expiration date;

d. All of the above-cited information for each entity on the proposed team, if a team is proposed;

e. Do you have a Government approved accounting system? If so, please identify the agency that approved the system;

f. Type of Company (i.e., small business, 8(a), woman owned, veteran owned, etc.)

as validated via the System for Award Management (SAM). All offerors must register in SAM located at http://www.sam.gov/;

g. Company Point of Contact, Phone and E-mail address.

13. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Volume I, Section I)

a. The offeror should provide an executive summary for the technical proposal. In the executive summary, the offeror should highlight the significant factors of its technical proposal. The executive summary for the technical approach should be no more than I page long.

b. In the event that the offeror is planning to propose a teaming, mentor/protegee, or a subcontracting relationship, narrative statements must also be included for the additional organizations, as well as a clear delineation of tasks that they will be expected to support.

14. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (Volume I, Section 2) Offerors shall provide a Technical Proposal that addresses the following two technical evaluation criteria:

a. Technical Approach At a minimum, the offeror's Technical Proposal must discuss:

I. The Offeror must demonstrate their thorough understanding of DoD, USAF, and customer technical requirements/standards by submitting an initial design, which meets or exceeds the specifications identified in the Statement of Work (SOW). The Contractor's design shall include design drawings, specifications, and material cut sheets.

b. Project Schedule The Offeror must define their project schedule that satisfies the requirements defined in this document. At a minimum, the proposal must include:

I. The Offeror must present a project schedule that will guarantee successful compliance with all technical, contractual, and delivery requirements set forth in the SOW.

2. The Offeror must provide a schedule which demonstrates the new flag case shall be fully installed and operational by 20 Nov 15 or best proposed date.

IS. PRICE PROPOSAL (Volume 2) The Offeror's Price Proposal shall be a separate volume from the Technical Proposal.

Pricing shall include all anticipated costs to fully perform all objectives as stated in the solicitation. The Offeror's Price Proposal shall be based on the prevailing Wage Rates, utilizing any and all discounts.

Price Proposals shall include the following:

The overall pricing shall be broken out and submitted using the following format:

CLIN I DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE I Unit Price I Total Price http://www.sam.gov/;

New case. Cost shall include all parts and labor 0001 required to manufacture new display case. Case must $ $ be in accordance with descriotion in the attached SOW.

Installation Services. Cost shall include all labor, and

0002 other miscellaneous costs required to install new $ $ disolav case and ensure its function

16. PAST PERFORMANCE (Volume 3) Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal. This volume consists of two sections, Reference Information and Questionnaire Information, and is limited to no more than 5 pages per contract listed. Only references for'past efforts/contracts of relevance are desired.

Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts: 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 same or similar type contract. 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.

Performance Surveys/Questionnaires: Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) shall be used by the offeror in obtaining and providing past performance information. The government requires the offeror send out a PPQ to each of the Points-of-Contact (POCs) identified in the Past Performance Proposal (paragraph (c) below).

The offeror shall send out the PPQ (Attachment 3), using the Past Performance Evaluation Cover Letter (Attachment 2), to each of their references.

THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEND OUT THE PAST PERFORMANCE

QUESTIONNAIRE RESTS SOLELY WITH THE OFFEROR.

Once the questionnaires are completed by the POCs, the information contained therein will be considered source selection sensitive and will not be released outside the government. The POCs shall forward their completed questionnaires directly to the government - NOT BACK TO THE OFFEROR.

PPQs shall be sent directly from your reference to this office marked to the attention of A IC Jake Hartzog, via fax at (808) 448-2913, or e-mail to jake.hartzog@us.af.mil, or mailed to the following address:

766 Specialized Contracting Squadron (766 SCONS/PKZ) Attention: A IC Jake Hartzog 90 G. Street, Building 1201 Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI 96853 mailto:jake.hartzog@us.af.mil,

17. Past Performance Information: Provide a list of no more than three, of the most relevant contracts performed for any customer. (See paragraph 10. Basis of Award - Performance Confidence Assessment)

Furnish the following information for each contract listed:

a. Company/Division name

b. Product/Service

c. Contracting Agency/Customer

d. Contract Number

e. Contract Dollar Value

f. Period of Performance

g. Verified, up-to-date name, mailing and e-mail addresses, and telephone number of the contracting officer (Point-of-Contact)

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

Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and identify aspects of the contracts deemed relevant and how they relate to the proposed effort. If an offeror has no past performance history of relevance, the offeror must affirmatively state it possesses no past performance history of relevance.

The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance regarding (i) predecessor companies, (ii) will take into account past performance of key personnel who have relevant experience, and/or (iii) will take into account past performance regarding subcontractors that will perform critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition. Critical aspects of the requirement are identified in SOW paragraph 3.2.1.

If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past 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 contracts of relevance.

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 each subcontractor that will perform critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of its past performance information to the prime contractor .

18. BASIS OF AWARD: This is a competitive Limited Tradeoff (LTO) best value acquisition conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 15 and Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedure (MP) 5315.3 in which competing offerors' combined past performance information and technical "acceptability" will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price. 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 evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers will be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest price, if the difference in the Past Performance Confidence Rating of another offeror justifies the higher price premium. In that event, the Contracting Officer will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the price and the Past Performance Confidence Rating. The evaluation process will include the following:

19. PRICE EVALUATION

Initially, all offerors shall be ranked from lowest-priced, to highest-priced.

Costll'rice Total estimated price to accomplish the requirement will be utilized as a basis for evaluating price. The factors below will be used to assess whether the Offeror's proposal is complete and accurate.

Cost/Price Completeness and Accuracy: The Government will review the cost/ price schedules for completeness and accuracy. Changes to the evaluation quantities, blanks or zeroes in the pricing columns, and/or mathematical mistakes may be subject to clarification for confirmation of the offeror's intent. The offeror's proposal will be checked for mathematical correctness to include the following:

Checking arithmetic in all computations.

Comparing electronic submittals with hard copies; if applicable.

Cost/Price Realism: The Government reserves the right to perform cost/price realism.

20. TECHNICAL EVALUATION

Next, the three lowest priced offerors' proposals shall be reviewed for Technical Acceptability. If an offeror is deemed technically unacceptable, no other part of their proposal will be evaluated. Those outside the initial evaluation pool will not be evaluated for technical acceptability, unless necessary to obtain the desired effective competition of three offers rated as "acceptable" in all technical subfactors or until all offerors have been evaluated.

The Technical Factors (A. Technical Approach and B. Project Schedule) may be given a rating of either Acceptable or Unacceptable.

The following table details what will deem an "acceptable" or "unacceptable" rating:

Table 2 - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL ASSESSMEI'il;r TABLE Rating Descrintion

Based on the offeror's technical proposal, the Government has ACCEPTABLE a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the reauired effort.

UNACCEPTABLE

Based on the offeror's technical proposal, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. An unacceptable is garnered if the Contractor's proposal does not detail the two (2) areas delineated above.

21. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Finally, the government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information on all technically acceptable offerors based on (i) the references provided by the offeror, and

(ii) any past performance information obtained from survey/questionnaires (Attachment 3), and (iii) any data independently obtained by the government. If a reference identified by the offeror in accordance with, Past Performance Information, paragraph c. above, does not submit a survey/questionnaire, the government will follow up with the reference POC, but it is not responsible for the failure of a reference POC to provide a survey/ questi onnaire.

Past performance regarding predecessor companies of the offeror and/or subcontractors, key personnel, and subcontractors that will perform critical aspects as identified in SOW, Paragraph 3.2.1 of the requirement, if applicable (see item 9. Past Performance Information, paragraph d. above), will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

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

Relevancy: Relevant performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities to that required by this solicitation. The government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 3 below:

Table 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY ASSESSMENTS

Rating Definition RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as the effort this solicitation requires.

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

Performance Ouality Assessment: For each of the recent past performance information reviewed, the performance quality of work will be assessed based on the (i) Quality Assessment Criteria evaluated under Section 4 of Present/Past Performance

Survey/Questionnaire (Solicitation Attachment 3) and (ii) the evaluation ratings in the Federal Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), if available.

Performance Confidence Assessments: The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror's ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror's demonstrated record of performance. The assessment process will result in an offeror's overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence. Offerors with no recent past or present performance history or the offeror's performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the offeror is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral). As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments, offerors will receive an integrated past performance confidence assessment rating as described in Table 3 below:

Rating

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

SATISF ACTOR Y

CONFIDENCE

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

NO CONFIDENCE

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

Description

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the re uired effort.

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.

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 solicitation.

If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to be technically acceptable, have a "Substantial Confidence" performance rating and the offeror is determined to be responsible, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to be technically acceptable or have a "Substantial Confidence" performance assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to be technically acceptable and have a "Substantial Confidence" performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Contracting Officer shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance.

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal 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.

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.

22. The Government contemplates delivery, configuration, installation, and testing of the new equipment on or before 20 November 2015. This requirement incorporates any standard warranty that may come with the associated products.

23. Clauses

The following FAR clauses apply:

Offerors must comply with the FAR provision 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications - Commercial Items (Apr 2012) and ALT I (Apr 2011).

The FAR clause 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions - Commercial Items (Feb 2012), applies to this acquisition.

FAR clause 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders - Commercial Items (May 2012), is applicable to this procurement along with the following addenda:

52.222-3, Convict Labor (Jun 2003) 52.222-21, Prohibition of Segregated Facilities (Feb 1999)

52.222-26, Equal Opportunity (Mar 2007) 52.222-36, Affirmative Action for Workers with Disabilities (Oct 2010) 52.222-41, Service Contract Act of 1965 (Nov 2007) 52.222-43, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act, Price Adjustment-

Multiple Year and Option Contracts (Sept 2009) 52.225-13, Restrictions on Certain Foreign Purchases (Jun 2008) 52.232-33, Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer-Central Contractor Registration (Oct

2003)

The following DFARS clauses also apply:

DFARS clause 252.212-700 I, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders Applicable to Defense Acquisitions of Commercial Items (Jun 2012), is applicable to this acquisition along with the following addenda:

252.225-7001, Buy American Act and Balance of Payments Program (Jun 2012) (41 U.S.C. chapter 83, E.O. 10582).

252.232-7003, Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving Reports (Mar 2008)

252.232-7010, Levies on Contract Payments (Dec 2006)

24. This RFP is not an authorization to begin performance, and in no way obligates the Government for any costs incurred by the contractor for this requirement. Prior to commencement of any activities associated with the performance of this effort, the Government will issue a written directive or contractual document signed by the Contracting Officer with appropriate consideration established. The Government reserves the right not to award a task order as a result of this RFP.

25. Attachments to the RFP include:

a. Attachment I - Statement of Work (SOW)

b. Attachment 2 - Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter

c. Attachment 3 - Past Performance Questionnaire

Sincerely, Brian Hendrix, MSgt, USAF Contracting Officer