Atch 5--ITO_BOA_HTPR_27Dec19.docx

Request for Proposal

RFP # FA5215-20-R-0006

Instructions to Offerors/Basis of Award (ITO/BOA)

1. Proposal Submission.

A. This is a competitive selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 procedures.

B. The proposal submitted in response to this RFP must be in compliance with the Statement of Work (SOW) dated 23 Dec 2019. All claimed capabilities to meet the requirements shall be realistic and are subject to verification by the Government. Non-conformance with these instructions may result in rejection of the proposal, an unfavorable proposal evaluation, or being deemed ineligible for award.

C. Offerors shall clearly identify any exception to the terms and conditions and shall provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions are unacceptable. Any exception determined unacceptable by the Government may result in the Offeror’s proposal being determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. This information shall be provided in the format and content of the table below within the Offeror’s proposal cover letter. If no exceptions are taken, include a statement stating so within the proposal cover letter.

RFP Exceptions

D. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. 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 that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities or experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal.

E. Discrepancies. If an Offeror believes the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer (CO) in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the Offeror is asking the CO to consider as related to the omission or error.

G. Delivery Dates. Delivery Dates are spelled out in the cover letter of this solicitation on a per-CLIN basis.

H. Proposal Submission. Each Offeror shall submit proposals electronically via email to John-Anthony Ford at johnanthony.ford.1@us.af.mil and to Ellen Souhrada at ellen.souhrada@us.af.mil. The Contractor shall submit proposals for consideration no later than 2:00pm AKST, 5 Feb 2020. Only one (1) proposal shall be submitted, per company, in response to this requirement. Proposals received after the date/time specified will not be evaluated.

I. Offerors submitting a proposal in response to this RFP shall submit Contract Documentation (Volume I), Schedule (Volume II) and Price Proposal (Volume III). Text shall be single-spaced, on an 8 ½ x 11 sheet with a minimum one-inch margin all around. Font shall be no less than Times New Roman 10 pt. Pages shall be numbered consecutively within each volume. Cover pages, tables of contents, cross-reference matrix, tabs, and glossaries shall not be counted against prescribed page limits. If page limits are exceeded, the excess pages will be destroyed and will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal. All proposal information shall be submitted in either MS Word or PDF format. Each volume shall be submitted as a separately-labeled electronic file. Offerors must ensure that pricing information is only included in Volume II. Do NOT include any pricing information in Volume I. Submit your proposal electronically in accordance with the table below. All electronic submissions shall reference the complete RFP number in the subject line.

Tax Liability Form (Attachment 7)

Internal Confidentiality Agreement (Attachment 8)

N/A

(1) Contract Documentation. Cover Letter shall include offerors’ contract number, small business status/categories, company primary and alternate points of contact with email/phone and who is authorized to contractually obligate the company, CAGE Code, DUNS number, a statement that the company understands the requirements specified and will meet the performance standards and requirements therein, a statement that the company does or does not take exception to any of the requirements of this solicitation, and specific information if proposing a teaming arrangement.

i. In accordance with FAR Clause 52.209-11, Contractors are required to complete the attached “Representation by Corporations Regarding Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction under any Federal Law”. (Attachment 7)

ii. By submitting a proposal, the Contractor agrees to comply with the provision at FAR 52.203-18 entitled “Prohibition on Contracting with Entities that Require Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements or Statement – Representation (Jan 2017)” and the clause at FAR 52.20319 entitled “Prohibition on Requiring Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements or Statement (Jan 2017)” (Attachment 8).

(2) Factor 1 – Technical. The Technical Proposal should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the Technical subfactors. Provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying the subfactors. Address your technical solution for meeting or exceeding the government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical subfactor. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

i. First Article Testing (FAT) & Compliance: Prior to the close of this solicitation, the contractor shall provide evidence of successful FAT (or an appropriate waiver signed by the ESA) and evidence of production for the USAF within the last 60 months

ii. Schedule: The Contractor shall include a proposed schedule for completing the effort within the requested POP. The schedule shall illustrate the plan to meet the delivery dates for all major activities. The schedule may be submitted in MS project format, but must also be accompanied by a portable document format (pdf) version of the printed schedule. The schedule is not subject to the font size in paragraph I and does not count towards the page count.

(3) Factor 2 – Price. The offeror shall submit pricing information to support the completeness and reasonableness of their proposed prices for all CLINs with the exception of the cost CLINs. The pricing information submitted should fully support the SOW requirements for each major functional element specified in the SOW. A breakdown should be provided which shows the skill mix, labor categories, labor rates and position descriptions. Information shall be segregated by the performance periods, individual performance locations, and the total price for each CLIN as specified in the solicitation. Information shall also show the consolidated total price for performance. The contractor shall submit a complete Schedule B (Attachment 4).

2. Basis of Award:

A. Award will be made in accordance with the procedures specified in the RFP and on the basis of the highest technically-rated proposal meeting the acceptability standards for price factors. Award may be made to the contractor who is deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the RFP’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the RFP instructions) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent an acceptably fair and reasonably priced proposal with the highest technical rating.

Award will be made to the highest technically rated offeror whom is determined to have a fair and reasonable price, otherwise known as a “High-Technical, Price Reasonable” (HTPR) basis. For the evaluation of the award decision, technical rating will be weighted as “significantly more important than cost” on this acquisition. A higher technical rating is achievable by a vendor who proposes and demonstrates a delivery schedule that is most advantageous to the Government.

Note: *The vendor may choose to split the delivery of any awarded CLIN into additional deliveries so long as the total requested quantities are achieved by the NLT dates; vendors are cautioned to still pursue a reasonable price while making decisions on their technical approach regarding delivery in appropriate economies of scale.

B. Selection shall be made on a High-Technical, Price Reasonable (HTPR) basis.

Gate 1) First, the Government will assess all proposals for Technical Subfactor 1.1: First Article Testing (FAT) & Compliance in accordance with (IAW) “Table A” Gate 2) Next, the Government will evaluate the price on an acceptable or unacceptable basis IAW “Table C”.

Gate 3) Then, the Government will evaluate the schedules proposed IAW “Table B” on a per-CLIN basis.

i) If the highest technically rated proposal is found acceptable for the first two gates, and their technical approach demonstrates a more favorable schedule of delivery IAW Table B, this contractor’s proposal represents the best value to the Government and award will be made to that contractor on a per-CLIN basis.

ii) In the event that two proposals are rated equally for their technical rating, price will be considered as a tie-breaker.

iii) If the highest technically rated proposal is not found to have acceptable with regard to Table C, “Factor 2: Price”, the Government will consider the correction potential and may enter into discussions. If after discussions with that contractor, their proposal is the highest technically rated and remains acceptably priced (balanced, complete, and reasonable), the award will be made to that contractor.

iv) If the Government deems the proposal not easily correctable, or if at any time it becomes other than the highest technically rated proposal, the next highest technically rated proposal will be evaluated for price acceptability (reasonableness, and completeness, and balance). Discussions will take place as necessary or deemed appropriate by the Government. The evaluation process will continue until reaching a technically superior proposal with an acceptable price, or until all proposals are evaluated.

C. The Government intends to make award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting discussions. Therefore, each offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if, during the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. The Government reserves the right to conduct exchanges using Exchange Notices (EN). Offeror responses to ENs will be considered in making the award selection decision.

3. Evaluation Factors A. Responses to this RFP will be evaluated against the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Sub-factor 1.1: First Article Testing & Compliance Sub-factor 1.2: Schedule Factor 2: Price

FACTOR 1: Technical Sub-factor 1.1: First Article Testing & Compliance

This criteria is met when the Contractor proposes a schedule, within the period of performance, which is achievable, measurable, and demonstrates progress towards achieving the proposed objectives and meeting delivery dates, as stated in the SOW. Proposed schedule includes all major activities, regulatory processes, and close-out activities.

The following ratings will be utilized:

TABLE A – Sub-factor 1.1: First Article Testing & Compliance

Sub-factor 1.2: Schedule

TABLE B – Sub-factor 1.2: Schedule

FACTOR 2: Price.

A. Price proposals should support the proposed technical approach and will be evaluated for (1) Total Evaluated Price (TEP), (2) completeness, (3) reasonableness and (4) unbalanced pricing. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award.

B. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the contractor’s proposed prices for the CLINs extended prices including the base period, all option periods and all optional CLINs plus the 6-month Option to Extend Services. Evaluation of options or optional CLINs shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options or optional CLINs.

C. The Government intends to award all options on this contract immediately in tandem with the award of CLIN 0001. The Government reserves the right to execute a ‘split award’. Evaluation of options or optional CLINs shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options or optional CLINs all to the same contractor in the interest of an expeditious delivery timeline.

D. Completeness. The proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements have been addressed. The contractor’s proposed price and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical volume and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto. The review will determine the adequacy of the contractor’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the RFP requirements.

E. Reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Government will determine prices fair and reasonable through the use of one or more of the price analysis techniques at FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

F. Unbalanced pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one (1) or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. An offer that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

TABLE C – Factor 2: Price

4. Although past performance may not be used as an evaluation factor, the projects submitted by the contractor to meet Factor 1 and information obtained from other sources available to the Government such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) will be used as part of the responsibility determination made IAW FAR 9.104-1. The Government reserves the right to obtain information relative to present and past performance on its own.

5. Ombudsman. In accordance with AFFARS 5352.201-9101, Ombudsman (JUN 2016), an Ombudsman has been appointed to hear and facilitate the resolution of concerns from Offerors, potential Offerors, and others for this acquisition. If resolution cannot be made by the CO, concerned parties may contact the following agency: Air Force Installation Contracting Agency (AFICA) ombudsman, Director, 1940 Allbrook Dr., Building 1, Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433, (937) 257-5529.