FA8051-16-R-0001_Rev01_Attachment_1_-_Sections_L__M.pdf

Solicitation # FA8051-16-R-0001

Revision 01 Attachment 1 – RFP Sections L & M

SECTION L Changes and Deletions Highlighted in RED.

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

L-I - INFORMATION TO OFFERORS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION

1.0 Program Structure and Objectives. This acquisition will be 100% Small Business Set-Aside. The Government is targeting award of eleven (11) Single-Award, Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contracts. All contracts shall be awarded from this solicitation. The Government will award (1) contract for each Air Force Base (AFB) identified in

Region 1; eleven (11) separate contracts will be awarded. Offerors may submit a proposal for one (1) or more than one

(1) base; however each submission shall be a separate and complete proposal. Offerors shall use the corresponding

Attachment 3 Pricing Worksheet to enter their proposed firm-fixed price (FFP) for each of the 12 Contract Line Item

Numbers (CLINs). The Government will utilize a Low Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process.

The eleven (11) AFB’s identified within Region-1 are as follows:

Texas: Dyess AFB, JBSA Lackland, JBSA Randolph, Sheppard AFB, and Laughlin AFB.

New Mexico: Holloman AFB, Kirkland AFB, Cannon AFB.

Oklahoma: Tinker AFB and Altus AFB.

Kansas: McConnell AFB.

Notice to Offerors: Funds are not presently available for this effort. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available. The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation either before or after the closing date for receipt of proposals. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an Offeror for any costs.

1.1 Teaming. Market research confirmed that subcontracting and teaming arrangements may be necessary because of the broad scope of the contract requirements; therefore such arrangements are encouraged to ensure mission success and maximize subcontracting opportunities.

1.2 Budget/Funding Information. For consideration in developing your proposal, the program/budget funding is as follows:

The Government intends to award 11 single IDIQ contracts. Each contract will have a specified ceiling as stated in the

RFP. The maximum total program size, for all 11 AFBs, is $8.7M over a one (1) year base and two (2) one-year option periods. The contracts are IDIQ ordering vehicles only and do not guarantee that any funds above the minimum contract amount will be awarded. Annual congressional allocations and prioritized requirements may drive future task order awards. Continuation of these construction efforts is expected, however, the availability of funding for future task orders depends upon various factors.

2.0 General Instructions.

(a) This section provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. 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. 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. Documents submitted in response to this RFP must be fully responsive to and consistent with the requirements of the RFP, government standards, and regulations pertaining to the Statement of Work (SOW) and evaluation factors for award in Section M of this RFP.

(b) 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.

(c) Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and not desired. Corporate logos may only be included on the cover page of the proposal.

(d) The Offeror’s proposal shall be valid at least 120 calendar days after the proposal due date. The Offeror shall annotate block 13D of the Standard Form 1442 that the proposal is valid as referenced above. The Offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation volume that the proposal is valid through this date.

(e) In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 Government Contract Files, the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. The Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

2.1 General Information

2.1.1 Point of Contact. The Contracting Officer (CO) is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the CO. Written requests for clarification may be sent to the CO via email. Email is the preferred method of communication. The CO for this acquisition is as follows:

Donald E. Illich, Contracting Officer

772 ESS/PKD

139 Barnes Drive, Suite 1 (AFCEC)

Tyndall AFB, Florida 32403-5319

PHONE: (850) 283-6854

FAX: (850) 283-0707

Email: donald.illich.1@us.af.mil

2.1.2 Debriefings. The Contracting Officer will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competition IAW FAR 15.503. Upon notification of exclusion, an Offeror may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring debriefing must make its request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506 as applicable.

Debriefing will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.506.

2.1.3 Discrepancies. If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the 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. The Offeror is reminded the

Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions should they be determined necessary.

2.1.4 Electronic Reference Documents. All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal

Business Opportunities (FedBizOps) website at https://www.fbo.gov/. Potential Offeror's are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

2.1.5 Communications. Exchanges of source selection information between Government and Offerors will be controlled by the CO. Email may be used to transmit such information to Offeror’s only if the email can be sent and received encrypted and includes “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104” in the subject line. In order to facilitate the sending and receiving of encrypted emails, Offeror’s must use MS Outlook email configured to support encryption or a different email product that is S/MIME compatible and configured to support encryption. If you intend to submit your source selection information via encrypted email, you will need to contact the Contracting Officer indicated on the face page of the solicitation prior to that first submittal in order to exchange certificates used for encryption. To insure the process is working correctly, send a test encrypted message first (without including any source selection information).

Offerors shall also submit proposal documents as password protected. The Contracting Officer will contact the Offeror to obtain the password for the proposal documents.

2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits.

The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 2.2 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the mailto:donald.illich.1@us.af.mil https://www.fbo.gov/ https://cs.eis.af.mil/airforcecontracting/knowledge_center/Documents/AFFARS_Library/5315/templates/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/Far02.doc#T2101 https://cs.eis.af.mil/airforcecontracting/knowledge_center/Documents/AFFARS_Library/5315/templates/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR03.DOC#b3104 number of copies as specified in Table 2.2. Each section and any attachments should be clearly separated by tabbed dividers and labeled appropriately. The response shall consist of no more than five (5) Volumes. Volume I (Executive

Summary), Volume II (Technical Approach), Volume III (Past Performance), Volume IV (Price) and Volume V (Other

Required Documents).

NOTE: Offerors may submit proposals for more than one AFB; however the Offeror must submit separate and complete proposals for each base; the Offeror shall submit the corresponding AFB Pricing Worksheet (Attach. 3) for each proposal.

Table 2.2 - Proposal Organization Table

VOLUME Ref VOLUME TITLE PAGE LIMIT COPIES

I 3.0 Executive Summary 3 Pages 1 Electronic/2

Paper Versions

II 4.0

Factor 1 - Technical Approach

NOTE: Diagrams, drawings, equipment specifications, material specifications, and payment and performance bond capacity letter, do not count towards 25 page limit.

25 Pages 1 Electronic/2

Paper Versions

III 5.0

Factor 2 - Past Performance

Tab 1 – Reference 1

Tab 2 – Reference 2

Tab 3 – Reference 3

Tab 4 – Reference 4

Tab 5 – Reference 5

NOTE: Add Tabs 6-8 (additional references for subcontractors, as needed

2 Pages per

Reference

1 Electronic/2

Paper Versions

IV 6.0

Factor 3 - Price

Tab 1 – Input CLIN unit prices on respective Pricing

Worksheet from Section J, Attachment 3.

Tab 2 – Bond Capacity Letter

NO PAGE

LIMIT

1 Electronic/1

Paper Version

V 7.0

Other Required Documents

Tab 1 – SF 1442 and all Amendments

Tab 2 – Representations and Certifications

Tab 3 – Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

Tab 4 – Other Information Required

Tab 5 – Letter of Credit

NO PAGE

LIMIT

1 Electronic/1

Paper Version 1 Each past performance reference consists of past performance information using Attachment 5, Past Performance Questionnaire; and Attachment 5, Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letter.

2.2.1 Page Limitations. Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and excess paper copies will be discarded.

Cover pages

Table of Contents

List of Tables and Figures

Glossaries

Tabs

Dividers

Blank pages

Proposal Summaries

Contractor Team Organization (Attachment-4)

Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment-5)

Sub-contractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letter (Attachment-6)

2.2.2 Page Size and Format.

(a) A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Pages shall be single spaced. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than12 point using

Microsoft Word, Times New Roman font. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾-inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

(b) Legible tables, charts, graphs, and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and count as a single page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics, not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than Microsoft Word, Times New Roman, 10-point. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

2.2.3 Pricing Related Data. All pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Proposal Volume.

2.2.4 Cross-Referencing. Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

2.2.5 Indexing. Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

2.2.6 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

2.2.7 Binding and Labeling. Each volume of the proposal should be tabbed separately in a three-ring, loose leaf binder.

Staples shall not be used. Multiple Volumes may be inserted into a binder, but shall be tabbed to identify the appropriate

Volume. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification, and the Offeror’s name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder. All unclassified document binders shall have a color other than red or other applicable security designation colors.

Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on disclosure and use of data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal

Information and Source Selection Information.

2.3 Electronic Offers.

The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. For electronic copies, indicate on each

CD the volume number and title. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. The Offeror shall submit volumes I through V in electronic format, using recordable CDs. Each volume shall be in a different directory on a CD. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included. Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) files are not permitted. In the event that hard copies and electronic copies of a proposal are submitted, and if there are any discrepancies between the hard copies and the electronic copies of the proposal, the hard copies will be used for evaluation. Only one (1) electronic copy of the proposal shall be submitted in accordance with the following:

a. Electronic storage media shall be submitted in one of the following formats:

- CD-R or DVD-R.

b. Submitting documents using Microsoft Office 2010:

- Word documents – Set "Save as type" to "Word Document (*.docx)" only.

https://cs.eis.af.mil/airforcecontracting/knowledge_center/Documents/AFFARS_Library/5315/templates/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR52.215.doc#b522151 https://cs.eis.af.mil/airforcecontracting/knowledge_center/Documents/AFFARS_Library/5315/templates/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR03.DOC#b31044

- Excel spreadsheets – Set "Save as type" to "Microsoft Excel Workbook (*.xlsx)."

- PowerPoint presentations – Set "Save as type" to "Microsoft PowerPoint 2010 Presentation (*.pptx)."

c. Submitting documents using Microsoft Office 2007:

- Word documents – Set "Save as type" to "Word Document (*.docx)" only.

- Excel spreadsheets – Set "Save as type" to "Microsoft Excel Workbook (*.xlsx)."

- PowerPoint presentations – Set "Save as type" to "Microsoft PowerPoint 2007 Presentation (*.pptx).

2.4 Distribution. The "original" proposal shall be identified. Proposals shall be bound and labeled per paragraph 2.2.6 above. Ensure the solicitation number is displayed prominently on all shipping packages. Proposal submissions can be mailed or hand carried to the office below and MUST be received by the proposal due date stated in Section A, Standard

Form 1442, Block 13A. Proposals shall be addressed to the CO: The CO for this acquisition is as follows:

Donald E. Illich, Contracting Officer

772 ESS/PKD

139 Barnes Drive, Suite 1 (AFCEC)

Tyndall AFB, Florida 32403-5319

PHONE: (850) 283-6854

FAX: (850) 283-0707

Email: donald.illich.1@us.af.mil

3.0 Volume I - Executive Summary (Not to Exceed three (3) pages)

In the executive summary volume, the Offeror shall provide the following information:

3.1 Narrative Summary. The narrative summary of the entire proposal should be concise, to include addressing the significant risks, and highlighting any key or unique features, excluding price. The salient features should tie in with

Section M evaluation factors. Any summary material presented in the narrative summary shall not be considered as meeting or contributing to the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal.

3.2 Table of Contents. Include a master table of contents of the entire proposal.

3.3 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms. Include a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms used throughout the volume.

4.0 Volume II - Technical Approach Volume

4.1 General.

The Technical Volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the technical criteria defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award.

Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying these criteria. 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.

NOTE: Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

4.2 Format and Specific Content. In the technical volume, address your technical solution for meeting the

Government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of each criterion.

4.3.Technical Approach. (Not to exceed 25 pages).

NOTE: Diagrams, drawings, equipment specifications, material specifications, and payment and performance bond capacity letter, do not count towards 25 page limit.

mailto:donald.illich.1@us.af.mil

5.0 Volume III - Past Performance Volume.

5.1 General. Each Offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in Table 2.2. This information is required on the Offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to perform as documented in Attachment-4, Contractor Team Organization. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each Offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

5.2 Past Performance References.

Each past performance reference shall contain the information required in sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.4.

5.2.1 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ).

The Offeror is responsible for sending the Attachment-5, PPQ to the primary customer point of contact identified in the past performance information sheet generated by the Offeror, with instructions to fax or email the completed questionnaire to the Contracting Officer. Questionnaires are due to the Contracting Officer by the volume/proposal due date in Block 13A on the Standard Form 1442; however, the Government requests the past performance volume be sent seven (7) calendar days prior to the proposal submission date to ensure all PPQs are received for a complete evaluation.

Instructions are also printed on the first page of the past performance questionnaire.

5.2.1.1 Recent and Relevant Past Performance.

5.2.1.1.1 References. References are considered recent if they have been performed and completed within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of the solicitation. PPQ’s and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the recency of past performance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

5.2.1.1.2 Magnitude. Magnitude considers the overall dollar value of the R3 requirement-related effort. A specific past performance effort is relevant (similar scope, magnitude of effort and complexities) when airfield rubber removal, airfield paint removal or airfield re-striping (both paint and preformed thermoplastics) has been performed on any DoD or commercial airfield (scope and complexity), and the total value of the effort is greater than $15,000 (magnitude).

5.2.1.2 Past Performance from Joint Venture (JV), Teaming Partners, Subcontractors. If the Offeror is a JV, and has a past performance record as the JV, one of the submissions shall be for the JV (Offeror). Offerors shall include past performance information on projects performed by each teaming partner(s) and subcontractors(s) that are considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort. If the Offeror is a mentor protégé (MP), one submission must be for the protégé. If the Offeror is both a mentor-protégé and a JV, the past performance requirement shall meet the requirements of the JV at a minimum. A separate completed form for each of the references is required in the Offeror’s proposal. Each should be numbered in Section III and separated by tab or page separators. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining recency and relevancy, see Section M, paragraph C, Past Performance Factor.

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 past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “Unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

5.2.2 Specific Content

Offerors are required to explain which aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. This may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the Offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to an unacceptable past performance evaluation rating since the problems encountered may have been http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm on a more complex program, or an Offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The Offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and must state the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an Offeror has overcome past problems is required.

5.3 Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letter (if applicable)

Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime Offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. The Offeror shall 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 Offeror.

The Offeror shall submit a consent letter executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the Offeror so the Offeror can respond to such information

(reference example letter at Attachment-6). Consent Letters do not count toward the 3-page limitation for each reference.

5.4 Organizational Structure Change History (if applicable)

Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company. A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may suffice. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the Offeror(s), your "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

6.0 Volume IV – Price Volume.

6.1 General Instructions.

6.1.1 Submission of FFP CLIN Prices. The Price volume shall consist of the following: Section J, Attachment 3, R3

Pricing Worksheet(s). This worksheet(s) will be used by the Price Evaluation Team during the source selection process.

Follow the instructions listed in the tab titled “Instructions”. Offerors must complete the worksheet(s) as designed. Any attempt to reformat or remove cells is unauthorized and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal. The submission of information needs to be complete and accurate. All yellow highlighted cells in the Excel spreadsheet(s) Attachment 3, must be completed by the Offeror. Incomplete pricing; any yellow highlighted cells left blank may result in an Offeror’s proposal being deemed unawardable. Offerors shall NOT annotate CLIN unit prices in Section B of the SF 1442/ solicitation; the Offerors shall leave the unit prices blank on the SF 1442 and only submit the FFP unit prices on the

Pricing Worksheets (Bid Schedules) provided as Attachment 3. Unit prices in Section B of the SF 1442 will be added upon award. The Offeror shall only enter CLIN unit prices on the Pricing Worksheet(s) for the base(s) the Offeror is proposing on. Eleven Pricing Worksheets one for each base, will be included as Attachment 3 to the solicitation.

Offerors may submit a proposal for more than one base; however, the Offeror MUST ensure the correct Pricing

Worksheet is submitted with the proposal(s). The name of the AFB will be annotated on each of the 11 separate Pricing

Worksheets provided in Attachment 3 of the solicitation.

6.1.2 Rounding. All dollar amounts shall be rounded to the nearest 2-decimal accounting format to prevent total price discrepancies due to rounding. Offeror's shall check each cell to ensure that values entered contain two decimal places.

7.0 Volume V – Other Required Documentation

7.1 Model Contract/Representations and Certifications. The purpose of this volume is to provide information to the

Government for preparing the contract document and supporting file. The Offeror’s proposal shall include a proposal cover letter, a signed copy of the SF 1442, and Sections A through K. The proposal cover letter shall certify that the

Offeror is providing a proposal package including two (2) complete hardcopies and one (1) electronic version, as required and that all versions are identical in content. The Offeror must document what software was used to prepare the proposal files and certify that the software used meets the specifications stated in Paragraph 2.3 above. Additionally, the Offeror shall document that all electronic files were checked and free of computer viruses. The virus software/definitions used to check the data must also be included in the statement.

7.1.1 Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form. The Offeror shall complete blocks 14 and 15 and signature and date blocks 30A and 30B of the Standard Form 1442. Signature by the Offeror on the Standard Form 1442 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept. The "original" copy should be clearly marked under separate cover and should be provided without any punched holes in Volume V, Tab 1.

7.1.1.1 Acknowledgement of any amendment(s) to the RFP is required. Offerors shall include a signed copy of the amendment acknowledgement in Volume V, Tab 1.

7.2 Section K. Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors Completed representations, certifications, acknowledgments and statements shall be in Volume V, Tab 2.

7.3 Other Information Required

7.3.1 Authorized Offeror Personnel. Provide the name, title, and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government. This information shall be provided in Volume V, Tab 3.

7.3.2 Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations. Provide company/division's street address, county and facility code; CAGE code; DUNS code; TIN; size of business (large or small); and labor surplus area designation. This same information must be provided if the work for this contract will be performed at any other location(s). List all locations where work is to be performed and indicate whether such facility is a division, affiliate, or subcontractor, and the percentage of work to be performed at each location. If a remittance address is used and is different from the mailing address, enter the remittance address in Volume V, Tab 4. Failure to provide this information may impact payment. This information shall be provided for both the prime and all teaming partners/major subcontractors.

SECTION M -- Evaluation Factors for Award

LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE (LPTA)

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award.

Award of this Airfield Rubber/Paint Removal and Airfield Restriping (R3) contract(s) will be made using the LPTA selection process. The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an

“Acceptable”/”Unacceptable” basis. Any factor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal as unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The LPTA source selection shall be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-2, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense

Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(AFFARS), Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) DoD Source Selection Procedures, 4 March 2011 and

Air Force Installation Contracting Agency (AFICA) Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, 1 Oct 2015. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. Contract(s) shall only be awarded to

Offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with 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 evaluated, based non-priced factors and price, to determine the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal(s). While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded.

The Government intends to award a target of eleven (11) Single-Award, IDIQ contracts. All contracts shall be awarded from this solicitation. The Government will award (1) contract per Air Force Base (AFB) identified in Region 1; eleven

(11) separate contracts will be awarded. Offerors may submit a proposal for one (1) or more than one (1) base; however separate proposals shall be submitted for each base. The Government will utilize a LPTA source selection process. The eleven (11) AFB’s identified within Region-1 are as follows:

Texas: Dyess AFB, JBSA Lackland, JBSA Randolph, Sheppard AFB, and Laughlin AFB.

New Mexico: Holloman AFB, Kirkland AFB, Cannon AFB.

Oklahoma: Tinker AFB and Altus AFB.

Kansas: McConnell AFB.

c. Discussions.

The Government reserves the right to award contracts without discussions. 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. An Offerors evaluation notice responses will be incorporated in the awarded contract. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

d. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions.

In addition to the evaluation factors identified in this solicitation, proposals shall be evaluated to ensure the solicitation requirements are met to include 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 must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine that any such exceptions may make the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS Changes and Deletions Highlighted in RED.

a. Evaluation Factors. The following evaluation factors 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.

Evaluation Factors as follows:

i. Factor 1: Technical Approach

ii. Factor 2: Past Performance

iii. Factor 3: Price

1). Factor 1: Technical Approach Evaluation. The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below. Any factor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable.

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.

This requirement is met (rated “Acceptable”) when the Offeror’s proposal provides the following detail:

The Offeror shall demonstrate an acceptable approach to be accessible 24 hours per day, to include normal duty hours and after duty hours, while work is being performed during task order execution. The

Offeror must provide a detailed plan to describe how their manpower and customer service function (to include warranty calls, coordination of contract actions, reporting of subcontractor information, quality control information, safety accident reporting, etc.) is managed to ensure responsiveness and acceptable task order performance; and

The Offeror explains how they will act in response to an emergency situation relating to or effecting ongoing R3 task order. The Offeror must demonstrate an acceptable ability to respond within one (1) hour from notification by the Government for emergencies and within 24-hours for routine communications; The Offeror demonstrates an organizational staffing plan and qualified subcontractor/teaming partner(s) (if applicable) which clearly meet SOW requirements, including an organizational diagram; and

The Offeror shall provide a quality control plan that demonstrates submission of a manufacturers literature (cut sheets) which illustrates paint materials meet or exceed Federal Specification TT-P-1952E or F; and demonstrates an ability to obtain beads which meet Federal Specification TT-B-1325D; and shall demonstrate an approach to ensure their marking machinery complies with Engineering Technical

Letter (ETL) 97-18 (Change 1): Guide Specification for Airfield and Roadway Marking; specifically how they will meet the requirements of:

i. mounted on pneumatic tires, and

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

ii. capable of applying lines of paint only, and/or

iii. capable of applying paint and beads simultaneously, and

iv. is able to apply paint and/or beads in widths of from 4 inches to 3 feet at a speed of at least 5 miles per hour in a single pass; and

The Offeror shall provide details on rubber removal and clean-up equipment; and demonstrate the capability to accomplish removal of rubber on airfields at a rate of 10,000 square feet per hour (rubber removal from Portland cement concrete pavements 90% or better and rubber removal from asphaltic concrete pavements 85% or better) without damaging the airfield; and

The Offeror shall provide processes/details to efficiently and safely remove paint from airfields;

specifically how they will meet the requirements of:

i. removal of paint by high pressure water which does not pose unnecessary risk to aircraft due to foreign object damage (FOD), human health or the environment; and

ii. removal of painted markings equal to or greater than 3-feet wide;

iii. maintaining a paint removal rate of 1,000 square feet per hour (paint removal from Portland cement concrete pavements and asphaltic concrete pavements 80% or better of loose, flaking paint) without damaging the airfield; and

iv. preventing any waste materials from washing off the airfield concrete surface; and

v. accomplishing efficient and safe compliance testing processes for paint removal resulting in a minimum 80% removal from 100% of the area specified; and

The Offeror shall provide processes/details for the process of testing equipment IAW ETL 97-17 Guide

Specification Paint and Rubber Removal from Roadway and Airfield Pavements. ; and

EVALUATION CRITERIA DELETED The Offeror shall provide processes/details on how thermoplastic airport pavement markings shall meet technical standards of U.S. Department of

Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular No: 150/5370-10G, Subject: Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports.

2). Factor 2: Past Performance Evaluation. The Past Performance factor will evaluate an Offeror’s present and past work record to assess the Government's confidence in the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing the requirements as outlined in this RFP. Past performance will be evaluated on a subjective, integrated assessment of recency, relevancy and quality of past performance. All proposals will be rated for past performance on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis in accordance with Table 2 below.

TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

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 has no

Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance 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 III and PPQs. Additionally, information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee

Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee

Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources may be utilized.

i. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. References are considered recent if they have been performed and completed within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of the solicitation. PPQ’s and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the recency of past performance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

ii. Relevancy Assessment. (Scope, Magnitude, and Complexity). The Government will conduct an evaluation of recent performance information obtained to determine whether performance under those contracts are relevant. Magnitude considers the overall dollar value of the R3 requirement-related effort.

A specific past performance effort is relevant (similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities) when airfield rubber removal, airfield paint removal or airfield re-striping (both paint and preformed thermoplastics) has been performed on any DoD or commercial airfield (scope), the total value of the effort is greater than $15,000 (magnitude), and the effort involves providing R3 requirements to DoD or commercial airfields (complexity). A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including JV partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. PPQ’s and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii), the evaluation should 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 acquisition.

The Government will use the following relevancy definitions in identified in Table 3 when assessing recent, relevant contracts.

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Non-

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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 past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “Unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

3). Factor 3: Price.

i. Adequate Price Competition. Adequate price competition per FAR 15.403-1(c)(1) is anticipated and may exist if, in part, two or more offers are received that satisfy the Government’s requirements.

ii. Price Reasonableness. Offerors’ Total Evaluated Prices (TEPs) will be evaluated for price reasonableness. The TEP will be the only discriminator amongst Offerors for the Price Factor. Price analysis will be used to evaluate the price reasonableness of each offeror’s TEP. The Government may compare offeror’s TEPs, compare TEPs to an Independent Government Estimate (IGE) or may use other price analysis techniques per FAR 15.404-1.

iii. Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP for each offer will be the sum of the base period FFP CLINs and option FFP CLINs. Evaluation of option price(s) shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). This determination will be based upon the price evaluations performed herein whether for a negotiated or competed action.

iv. Bond Capacity. The Offeror shall provide a payment and performance bond capacity letter from an approved surety listed with the Department of Treasury (http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/c570.html) that identifies the current per project and aggregate performance and payment bonding capacity of the Offeror.

This letter must indicate that the Offeror is capable of obtaining performance and payment bonds for projects located in the state(s) where the Offeror is awarded a contract(s). The largest anticipated project is $400,000. Aggregate bonding capacity as identified in this letter must equal or exceed $1,000,000.

v. In the event the Government requires continued performance via an exercise of FAR Clause 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract (MAR 2000), the contractual basic or option price(s) as applicable to the exercise period will be considered “fair & reasonable.” This determination will be based upon the price evaluations performed herein whether for a negotiated or competed action.

NOTE: Offerors may submit a proposal for more than one base; however, the Offeror MUST ensure the correct Pricing Worksheet is submitted with the corresponding proposal(s). The name of the individual AFB will be annotated on each of the 11 separate Pricing Worksheets provided in

Attachment 3 of the solicitation. The TEP will be evaluated separately for each proposal submitted.