7. Sections L & M.pdf

Solicitation: FA706024R0004 Atch #7

Section L

PROPOSAL 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. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

B. 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 volumes, Volume I – Technical Proposal, Volume II – Past Performance, Volume III – Price Proposal, and Volume IV – Completed RFP. Evaluation will be made in accordance with Section M of this solicitation.

C. 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 opinion, 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 acquisition 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.

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

VOLUME: PAGE LIMIT # COPIES DESCRIPTION

I 10 1 Technical II N/A 1 Past Performance III N/A 1 Price IV N/A 1 Completed RFP

VOLUME I – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (Page Limit: 10):

General - The written technical proposal shall be clear, concise, and include all the information required by this provision in sufficient detail for effective evaluation. 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 the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities, work processes, facilities, and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s technical proposal.

Description: The Offeror’s proposal shall contain: 1) Underground Storage Tank (UST) Technician Certification, and 2) Current Certified UST Contractor for the District of Washington.

a. Subfactor 1 – Underground Storage Tank (UST) Technician Certification

Offeror shall provide UST Technician Certification that meets the requirements of 20 DCMR

CHAPTER 65 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS – LICENSING, CERTIFICATION,

OPERATOR REQUIREMENTS, AND OPERATOR TRAINING, paragraph 6501.1.

b. Subfactor 2 – Current Certified UST Contractor for the District of Washington

Offeror shall provide certification of the UST Business License with the District of Washington that meets the requirements of 20 DCMR CHAPTER 65 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS –

LICENSING, CERTIFICATION, OPERATOR REQUIREMENTS, AND OPERATOR

TRAINING, paragraph 6501.2.

VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE: Will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

a. 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.

b. 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.

c. Return completed Past Performance Information Forms and Subcontractor Consent (if applicable) no later than the offeror due date and time specified in block 13 of the solicitation SF1442. Have references send PPIFs to:

trenton.high.2@us.af.mil / rachel.denfeld@us.af.mil

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

a. Submit proposed price on SF1442 Section B – CLIN 0001 in the box titled Amount.

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.

VOLUME 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:

mailto:trenton.high.2@us.af.mil

1. Format for proposal volumes I, II, III, and IV shall be as follows:

a. The proposals must be submitted electronically in Microsoft Word, Excel or Adobe PDF format.

b. A page is defined as one side of a document containing information. There are no specific page size requirements, but pages should be formatted appropriately for on-screen reading and review. Pages are recommended to be formatted to standard letter (8.5 x 11 in) or A4 (210 x 297 mm) dimensions.

c. Typing shall not be less than 10 point.

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

e. Electronic Submission – In accordance with FAR 52.215-1 – Instructions to Offerors, emailed proposals will be accepted. Emailed proposals must be sent to trenton.high.2@us.af.mil and rachel.denfeld@us.af.mill. *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.

f. 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.

g. Each page of the offeror’s proposal and any EN responses should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

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

3. Offeror should allow sufficient time to arrive and submit the proposals to the Contracting Office prior to the closing time. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with the provisions established in FAR

15.208 “Late Submission, Modifications, and Withdrawals of Proposals”.

4. All contractors’ questions in response to this solicitation must be emailed to trenton.high.2@us.af.mil and rachel.denfeld@us.af.mil no later than 23 April 2024 at 10:00AM EDT. The Government will not be held responsible for answering any questions after this time. All questions/answers resulting from this solicitation will be posted to www.sam.gov.

5. This section provides general guidance for preparing proposals. Offerors’ proposals must include all data and information requested by this solicitation and must be submitted and conducted 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.

6. The proposal must be completed and returned no later than the offeror due date and time specified in block 13 of the solicitation SF1442.

mailto:trenton.high.2@us.af.mil mailto:casey.morrison.1@us.af.mil mailto:trenton.high.2@us.af.mil mailto:rachel.denfeld@us.af.mil http://www.sam.gov/

Section M

EVALUATION FACTORS:

A. SOURCE SELECTION

1. Basis for Contract Award: This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix C, 20 August 2022 and Department of the Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 dated 7 July 2023. These regulations are available electronically at the Acquisition.GOV website, https://www.acquisition.gov/. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with 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) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. 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.

2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the AAFES Underground Storage Tank requirement.

3. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. 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 and ineligible for award.

4. Solicitation Requirements, Term 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. Failures to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

5. Proposal Evaluation Approach:

a. Step 1: Evaluate all timely proposals for completeness.

b. Step 2: Evaluate all responsive proposals for technical acceptability.

c. Step 3: Assess past performance for each offeror.

d. Step 4: Evaluate all proposals to determine whether the price is fair and reasonable (IAW FAR 15.404 &

FAR 31.201-3) then ranked by CLIN and/or Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

e. Step 5: The Government may request clarifications, communications, or discussions for proposals through Evaluation Notice(s).

https://www.acquisition.gov/

f. Step 6: The Source Selection Evaluation Board will compile a Source Selection Decision Document for the SSA to assess the integrated best value to the Government and, upon contract clearance, select the successful offeror.

6. 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.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS

1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors: The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: UST Technician Certification Subfactor 2: UST Certified Contractor in District of Columbia

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2. Factor 1 - Technical: 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 each subfactor. Offerors that fail to clearly address any of the following requirements may receive an Unacceptable rating for this subfactor.

Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

Table C-1 Technical Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1 – Underground Storage Tank (UST) Technician Certification

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s UST Technician Certification per 20 DCMR

CHAPTER 65 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS – LICENSING, CERTIFICATION, OPERATOR

REQUIREMENTS, AND OPERATOR TRAINING.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal provides the certification of the

UST Technician IAW 20 DCMR CHAPTER 65 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS – LICENSING, CERTIFICATION, OPERATOR REQUIREMENTS, AND OPERATOR TRAINING, paragraph 6501.1.

Subfactor 2 – Current Certified UST Contractor for the District of Washington

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s UST Certification with the District of Washington.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal provides the certification of the UST Business License IAW 20 DCMR CHAPTER 65 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS –

LICENSING, CERTIFICATION, OPERATOR REQUIREMENTS, AND OPERATOR TRAINING,

paragraph 6501.2.

3. Factor 2 - Past Performance: The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

a. Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

Table C-2 – Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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 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 (or “neutral”) past performance.

In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

b. Evaluation Process: The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the solicitation requirements. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Contracting Officers and commercial sources.

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 be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

ii. Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed. Consideration will be given to the offeror that performed as the prime contractor for projects such as replacement of underground fuel storage tanks with a contract dollar value of at least $250,000.00 and having similar complexity and function, utilizing trades relevant to those required by this solicitation. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). 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 Past Performance Information Forms (PPIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government will only evaluate the five (5) most current efforts that are deemed recent and relevant for each offeror. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Table 4 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings (adjusted) Rating Definition

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

iii. Performance Quality Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Past Performance Quality Assessment Table Quality Assessment Description

Satisfactory During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Unsatisfactory

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

Not Available Quality and/or performance information is not available.

c. Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table C-2). More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance rating than less recent effort.

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

a. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes based upon the total price proposed for the requirement.

b. Reasonableness: The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

c. The Government shall rank all offers by total price proposed. The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. If at any time during this acquisition the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist, offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness of price.