Attachment 10 - Sections L and M.docx

FA706023R0003

Attachment 10 Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS:

0. Magnitude of Construction: $50,000,000.00 Ceiling. Task orders will range from $500.00 – $5,000,000.00. The Government will provide, at a minimum, one task order that will be awarded under the basic IDIQ contract. To cover the initial award requirement of each Task Order per AFFARS 5316.504(a)(2), the seed project will be awarded to the offeror that represents the best value based on price amongst those offerors selected to receive an award. The remaining awardees will receive a task order in the amount of $500.00 each for attending the post-award orientation conference.

0. The following instructions cover the preparation and submittal of the offeror’s proposals for this solicitation. 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. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. No exceptions to the solicitation terms and conditions will be accepted. The response shall consist of four (4) separate parts, Part I – Technical Proposal, Part II – Past Performance, Part III – Price Proposal, and Part IV - Administrative. Evaluation will be made in accordance with Section M of this solicitation.

0. The Contracting Officer (CO) has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the CO will review this determination and if, in the CO’s judgement, adequate price competition exists, no additional price information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the CO to determine the reasonableness of the price.

0. Volume Organization: Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in four separate volumes as set forth below:

PART I – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY (Page Limit: None):

Description: The Offeror’s proposal shall contain: 1) Quality Control Plan, and 2) Management Plan relating to projects similar in scope under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 237310 “Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction Contractors”, with a minimum value of $500,000.00 and in accordance with the Paving Specifications (attachment 1).

0. Technical Subfactor 1: Quality Control Plan (QCP)

Offeror shall provide a formal QCP that minimizes technical, cost, and schedule risks to execute projects. Additionally, the plan must demonstrate how the offeror will maintain project standards in accordance with the QCP criteria listed in the master specification at 01 45 00.00 40 paragraph 1.2. The QCP will be incorporated into the resulting contract.

0. Technical Subfactor 2: Management Plan

The Offeror’s proposal shall contain a Management Plan that includes Equipment, Staffing and Mobilization. The offeror shall provide an organizational and/or staffing chart identifying all key personnel with a description of their work experience relating to projects similar in scope under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 237310, Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction Contractors, with a minimum value of $500,000.00. Additionally, the Offeror shall provide a detailed Mobilization and Equipment plan that clearly addresses how the Offeror will be fully functional by the 60th day after contract award. The plan shall include complete inventory of material handling equipment, maintenance, special tooling, and delivery of support equipment to meet project execution.

PART II – PAST PERFORMANCE:

1. The offeror may submit Past Performance Information for itself and any joint venture members, as well as each proposed subcontractor. A Past Performance Information Form (PPIF), Attachment 3 is provided with the solicitation for offerors to send to a maximum of three (3) references of their choice. PPIF references who have returned the forms will be used in the past performance evaluation. Please note that the PPIF will only be accepted if it is received directly from the reference.

1. Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s written consent. Provide a letter of consent (Attachment 5) to release past performance information to the prime offeror from each subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.

1. Return completed Past Performance Information Forms and Subcontractor Consent (if applicable) NLT the offeror due date and time specified in block 13 of the solicitation SF1442. Have references send PPIFs to:

wade.vinje@us.af.mil and demetria.figueroa.2@us.af.mil

PART III – PRICE PROPOSAL (Page Limit: None):

a. Complete the Offer Schedule that is part of the Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (Attachment 6) utilizing the Paving MACC IDIQ Specification (Attachment 1).

b. Other than certified cost or pricing data may be requested by the Government.

c. No price information should be included in the technical or past performance proposals.

PART IV – COMPLETED RFP (Page Limit: None):

a. Complete blocks 14 through 20C of the RFP Section A, SF1442. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in RFP Sections A through K. These sections constitute the model contract.

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

c. A letter of authorization must be submitted for the Contracting Officer to verify offeror’s financial responsibility (Attachment 4). Include name, address and phone numbers for financial institutions to include points of contact.

d. Acknowledgement of all amendments to the solicitation IAW the instructions on the SF 30 (amendment form).

E. General Information:

0. Format for proposal parts I, II, III, and IV shall be as follows:

0. The proposals will be 8 1/2” x 11” paper or standard A4 paper, except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams, which may not exceed 11” x 17”. All tables, charts, graphs, figures, etc., must be legible.

0. A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information.

0. Typing shall not be less than 10 point font.

0. Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are not desired or required.

0. Electronic Submission – IAW FAR 52.215-1 – Instructions to Offerors, only emailed proposals will be accepted. Proposals must be sent to wade.vinje@us.af.mil and demetria.figueroa.2@us.af.mil. Note email size must not exceed 10 MB. If the proposal is more than 10 MB, please submit as email 1 of 2, etc. Format must be a Word Document, PDF, or Excel sheet. The offeror must request and obtain an acknowledgement of receipt for electronic submission. Email subject line should include solicitation number and project title.

0. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), if issued. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to offerors or on the EN form itself. Each page containing proprietary information should be so marked.

2. A pre-proposal site visit will be conducted as specified in 52.236-27 Alternate 1.

1. Offerors should allow sufficient time when submitting the proposals to the Contracting Office prior to the closing time. Late proposals will be processed IAW the provisions established in FAR 15.208 “Late Submission, Modifications, and Withdrawals of Proposals”.

1. All contractors’ questions in response to this solicitation must be emailed to wade.vinje@us.af.mil and demetria.figueroa.2@us.af.mil no later than 23 January 2023 at 1400 EDT. Only emailed questions will be answered. The US Government will not be held responsible for answering any questions after this time. All questions/answers resulting from this solicitation will be posted to sam.gov.

1. This section provides general instructions for preparing proposals. Offerors’ proposals must include all data and information requested by this solicitation and must be submitted in strict accordance with these instructions. Non-conformance with the specific organization, content, and page limitations may result in misevaluation of proposals or, depending on the magnitude of the nonconformance the proposals may be eliminated from further consideration.

1. The proposal must be completed and returned NLT the offeror due date and time specified in block 13 of the solicitation SF1442.

1.

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS:

1. SOURCE SELECTION

0. Basis for Contract Award: This is Subjective Tradeoff source selection conducted IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), and DoD Source Selection Procedures, 30 August 2022. These regulations are available electronically at http://acquisition.gov. This is a competitive, Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) with Technical Acceptability best value source selection. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are deemed to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered significantly more important than price. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical (acceptable or unacceptable), Past Performance, and Price. A contract may be awarded to the offeror(s) who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation). While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The Government reserves the right to evaluate and/or award more than or fewer than the target number of contracts based upon Source Selection Authority (SSA) determination that it is in the Government's best interest. The SSA’s best interest determination will be based on a consideration of one or more of the following items: available funding, the need to sustain adequate competition, and the availability of awardable proposals, consistent with Tradeoff procedures outlined in this solicitation, following completion of an integrated assessment of the proposals received.

0. Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government’s target number of contracts is five (5) 8(a) certified Small Business contracts. The Government reserves the right to award more or less than the target of five (5) awards. The Paving Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) IDIQ contract falls under the NAICS 237310 with a 1-year base period and four, 1-year options for a 5-year total ordering period. It will be a Firm Fixed Price contract, with a $50,000,000.00 ceiling.

0. Discussions: The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or opportunity for proposal revisions. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to ENs and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. Offerors may be required to respond with their FPR within 24 hours. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to re-evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable or the price is no longer fair and reasonable, the offeror may be ineligible for award. If the Government elects to open discussions, the competitive range may or may not include proposals rated as “Unacceptable” at the sole discretion of the Government. A competitive range, if required, may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

0. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

0. Proposal Evaluation Approach:

Note: The Government’s target number of contracts is five (5) 8(a) certified Small Business contracts under this solicitation.

4. Step 1: Review all timely proposals for completeness. An incomplete proposal may be ineligible for award.

4. Step 2: Evaluate all complete proposals for technical acceptability. Concurrently, the Government will assess past performance for each offeror.

4. Step 3: Evaluate all seed project proposals to determine whether the price is fair and reasonable (IAW FAR 15.404).

4. Step 4: At this time, an integrated assessment will be made on those proposals rated technically acceptable, with past performance confidence assessment ratings of substantial, satisfactory, or unknown (neutral), and pricing determined to be fair and reasonable based on competition of all selection criteria in the small business category.

4. Step 5: Select a target of five (5) 8(a) certified Small Business proposals for award. Perform an integrated assessment to create a target of three (3) of the remaining proposals for the on-ramp pool. The Government reserves the right to award more or less than the target of five (5) awards, and create a pool of more or less than three (3) contractors.

4. Step 6: The seed project will be awarded to the offeror that represents the best value based on price amongst those offerors selected to receive an award. The remaining awardees will receive a task order in the amount of $500.00 for each offeror selected to receive an award for attending the post-award orientation conference.

0. Responsibility: In addition to the evaluation factors noted above, the offeror must be determined responsible according to the standards in FAR Subpart 9.1 Responsible Prospective Contractors.

1. EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors: The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

1. Factor 1 - Technical Capability: The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for the subfactor listed below. Offerors that fail to clearly address any of the following requirements will receive an unacceptable rating for this subfactor. A subfactor evaluated as “unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, will be considered for award.

Table C-1 Technical Ratings

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s 1) Quality Control Plan and 2) Management Plan contained within their technical proposal relating to projects similar in scope under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 237310 “Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction Contractors”, with a minimum value of $500,000.00 and in accordance with the Paving Specifications [This corresponds to Section L].

Subfactor 1: The proposed Quality Control Plan will be evaluated to assess the offeror’s quality control approach to effectively minimizes technical, cost, schedule risks and maintain project quality standards in accordance with the QCP criteria listed in the master specification at 01 45 00.00 40 paragraph 1.2.

Subfactor 2: The proposed Management Plan will be evaluated to assure appropriate levels of key personnel and work experience relating to projects similar in scope under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 237310, Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction Contractors, with a minimum value of $500,000.00. Additionally, the offerors’ proposed Mobilization and Equipment plan will be evaluated to assess the Offeror’s ability to be fully functional by the 60th day after contract award. Lastly, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s equipment plan to support successful project execution.

1. Factor 2 - Past Performance: The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

0. Ratings. Each offeror will receive a single integrated performance confidence assessment. This integration may include the recent and relevant present/past performance of the Prime Contractor, and joint ventures, and/or subcontractors. An offeror’s overall confidence assessment will be impacted by past performance findings to include the amount and type of work proposed to be performed by each entity of the offeror’s team. More recent performance or more relevant past performance may have greater impact on the performance confidence assessment. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is recent and relevant to the Paving IDIQ, the resulting performance confidence assessment is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of Contractor performance and the resulting confidence level for work under this requirement. Each offeror will receive one of the performance confidence rating as described in in Table 5 below.

TABLE 5 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

0. The Government will consider and evaluate offeror's past performance information, to include the PPIF, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The Government will assess if past performance is deemed recent and relevant for the requirements of this RFP. Recent and Relevant is defined in the subparagraph below:

i. Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated for relevancy

ii. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s Past Performance occurring during the recency window (three (3) years preceding the solicitation issuance date), will be made. In assessing relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, joint venture, or teaming partner whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Higher relevancy will be assigned for contracts that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, for which that Offeror is proposing. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government will use the past performance relevancy assessment described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings. The Government will only evaluate the five (5) most current efforts that are deemed recent and relevant for each offeror.

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Consideration will be given to:

The offeror, any joint venture members, or proposed subcontractor that performed projects such as parking lot, road, and concrete repair with a contract dollar value of at least $500,000.00.

0. In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The PPIFs and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. Teaming arrangements are characterized by two or more business entities that are working together under the representation of one of the existing business entities for the duration of a contract. A teaming arrangement is not a formal merger of two or more business entities. The Government recognizes the validity and integrity of teaming arrangements as detailed in FAR 9.6. All offerors are encouraged to review FAR 9.6 to acquaint themselves with its details. Since the Government can only determine the responsibility of the prime contractor per FAR 9.604(b), IAW FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, offerors must identify in their offer any teaming arrangement to be considered and completely identify the relationships/responsibilities of the teaming members, to include relevant and recent past/present performance information on a maximum of three (3) projects teamed with the same partner. If unable to submit three (3) past/present performance information forms with the same partner, submit past/present performance information on the prime contractor for a maximum of three (3) projects total.

0. Joint ventures are characterized as two or more business entities that have been merged to create one business entity with equal responsibility during the course of the contract. If this is a first time Joint Venture, please submit past/present performance information forms on a maximum of three (3) projects total by any business entity in the arrangement as identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) above.

1. Factor 3 – Price: Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable may not be considered for award.

a. The Government will evaluate the proposed price for the seed project, in Attachment 6, in order to determine which offerors’ total price represents the best value to the Government. A price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Comparison of the proposed prices among offerors in response to the solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price and will be IAW FAR 15.404-1.