15r18_a08_acq_plan_LM.doc

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

A. General:

1. 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.

2. If taking exception to any solicitation terms and conditions, offerors must clearly identify such exception and provide complete accompanying rationale.

3. The response shall consist of three (3) separate parts: Part I – Price Proposal, Part II – Technical Acceptability, and Part III – Past Performance B. Pricing:

1. The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional cost information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required.

2. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness of the price.

C. Specific Instructions:

1. PART I – PRICE PROPOSAL - Submit original or one (1) electronic copy (.doc or .pdf format).

(a) Complete blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20A, 20B, and 20C of the Solicitation Section A, SF 1442. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the Solicitation Sections A through K. These sections constitute the model contract.

(b) Coefficient Factor Percentage Information – Offerors shall provide all coefficient factor percentage information necessary to provide a meaningful basis for the Government’s analysis and evaluation of contract line item prices proposed in Section B in accordance with Section M.

(1) Schedule of Pricing Coefficients Applied to Prepriced Items: The Offeror must propose one (1) coefficient for CLIN 0001 which applies to all Standard Working Hour line items included in this Contract. The Offeror’s proposal will be in the form of a multiplier applied to the R.S. Means Inc ® published cost for “TOTAL, INCLUDING OVERHEAD & PROFIT”. The multiplier is limited to two (2) decimal places; and shall represent "net" (equal to 1.0), or a percentage "decrease from" (e.g. .92) or an "increase" (e.g. 1.12) to the unit prices listed in the appropriate R. S. MEANS ® Facility Construction Cost Data Unit Price Book. The purpose of applying the coefficients to direct pre-priced costs from the Unit Price Book is to compensate the Offeror for burden costs and profit for performance. The pricing coefficient is not subject to economic price adjustments and will remain unchanged for the existing terms and conditions of the contract. Each offeror must submit one (1) coefficient (percentage factor) in order to be considered responsive to the RFP requirements. The Offeror's price coefficient (percentage factor) shall include all costs including, but not limited to, mobilization, demobilization, overhead, general and administrative expense, engineering services, project design work, insurance, expenses to comply with environmental and tax laws, and profit. No allowances will be made later for any other than prepriced or nonprepriced item unit prices. All Offerors shall provide explanation regarding the rationale used to determine the coefficient.

(2) For proposal pricing purposes, Offeror should assume an estimated contract start date on or about October 2015.

(c) The Coefficient Factor Percentage proposal should be limited to three (3) pages. Submission of volumes of computer-generated data to support the cost proposal is not necessary or desired. If computer-generated data is essential to support the cost proposal, it may be submitted as an addendum and must be clearly cross-referenced to the material it supports in the cost proposal

(d) Coefficient Factor Percentage proposals should represent the Offeror’s best response to the solicitation. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and cost or price data must be fully explained in the proposal. Failure to explain any significant inconsistencies may demonstrate Offeror’s lack of understanding of the nature and scope of the work required. Accordingly, coefficient factor percentage proposals must be sufficient to establish the reasonableness of the proposed coefficient. Further, any modifications made to the initial proposal must likewise by thoroughly supported in writing regardless of whether such changes are made during negotiations or at the time of a Final Proposal Revision, if requested.

(e) Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections I through K. Section K shall be returned in its entirety. For Sections C through I, the offeror shall submit only those pages that require a fill-in. The offeror’s Online Representations and Certifications record must be current, accurate, and complete. For additional information, reference www.SAM.gov.

(f) For this procurement, it has been determined that competition will be Set-Aside 100% for Small Businesses in accordance with FAR 19.5. For reference, the NAICS code is 238210 with an associated size standard of $15,000,000 average annual revenue for the previous 3 years.

2. PART II – TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY – Submit original or one (1) electronic copy (.doc or .pdf format).

(a) In order for an Offeror’s proposal to be considered Technical Acceptable it must include proof of an online subscription to the R.S. Means, Inc. If the Contractor does not have a current subscription, they will need to certify that if chosen as the successful Offeror they will provide proof of a subscription no later than five (5) days after award notification.

(b) By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation in terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

3. PART III – PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION - Submit original or one (1) electronic copy (.doc or .pdf format).

(a) PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES AND SURVEYS:

(1) The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of offerors’ performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources, such as other Federal Government offices, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS) within the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and commercial sources, to assess performance.

(2) Offerors shall submit Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) for no more than three (3) of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers ongoing or completed within the last five (5) years which demonstrate the ability of the offeror to perform the proposed effort.

(3) Offerors will complete Section A of the PPQ (pages 2 & 3) for each reference and include one (1) copy with their proposal. The offeror will complete Block 2 of Section B (pages 1 – 7) for each referenced contract, submit Section B of the PPQ directly to their references, and then request that the references return the PPQs directly to the Government by the response date in SF1442 Block 13a.

(4) On a separate sheet of paper, offerors shall clearly describe the relevance to this solicitation of each project in which PPQs were submitted to a reference. Relevance is defined in paragraph C.3(c) below.

(5) Past performance regarding predecessor companies, personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform critical aspects of the requirement will be evaluated if submitted.

(b) QUALITY AND SATISFACTION RATINGS. Offerors may provide any currently available information such as letters, metrics, customer surveys, or other independent surveys which demonstrate customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product, subject to the following limitations:

(1) Submit no more than five (5) quality and satisfaction ratings.

(2) The work described must be ongoing or have been completed within the last five (5) years.

(3) Explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, or similar issues.

(c) RELEVANCE To be considered RELEVANT, efforts performed by the offeror must be ongoing or have been completed successfully within the last five (5) years and have included work involving one or more of the following criteria:

· An effort performed by the offeror completed within the last three (3) years which included installation of power distribution equipment including switchgear (at least 2000 Amp), 3-phase dry-type transformers (at least 150 kVA), and associated distribution and branch circuit panel boards.

· An effort performed by the offeror completed within the last three (3) years which included installation of interior and/or exterior lighting that included LED luminaires with dimming capability and lighting controls which included photo-sensors and/or motion detectors.

· An effort performed by the offeror completed within the last three (3) years which included installation of 3-phase motors (208V or 480V) including motor control centers and/or variable frequency drives.

· An effort performed by the offeror completed within the last three (3) years which included either:

· Installation of an addressable fire alarm system covering an entire building including main fire alarm control panels, notification appliances, and initiating devices, or

· Installation of an addressable control system including network and input/output wiring of controllers.

NOTE: Efforts involving a greater number of the above criteria will have greater impact on the confidence assessment.

(d) TEAMING ARRANGEMENT OR JOINT VENTURE: if the Offeror intends to fulfill the requirements of this solicitation in a teaming arrangement or joint venture, the Offeror must provide complete information as to the teaming arrangement or joint venture, including a list of any recent and relevant contracts or other past performance information on previous teaming arrangements or joint efforts with the same teaming or joint venture partner.

(e) SUBCONTRACTOR CONSENT: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

D. Format:

(1) Documents submitted in response to this solicitation must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:

a. Requirements of the solicitation (CLINs and Project Manual and Drawings) and Government standards and regulations pertaining to the Project Manual and Drawings.

b. Evaluation Factors for Award in Section M of this solicitation.

(2) There is no limitation on the number of proposal pages or past performance information pages.

NOTE TO OFFERORS:

The requirements documents for the first Task Order is provided as Attachment TBD. However, Offerors are NOT required to provide a proposal for the first Task Order, as it will not be evaluated as part of the Basic IDIQ evaluation factors, and will only be for planning purposes. Once a successful Offeror is chosen for the Basic IDIQ, that Offeror will be required to provide a proposal for the first Task Order, based on the requirements documents provided, and within five (5) days of award notification. Upon receipt of that proposal, the Government has the right to negotiate and award the first Task Order in parallel with the Basic IDIQ.

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE/SITE VISIT RESERVATION

A pre-proposal conference and site visit has been scheduled for TBD August 2015. Offerors wishing to attend must complete attached Pre-proposal Conference/Site Visit Reservation Form, Attachment TBD.

CONTRACTOR INQUIRIES

Formal communications/inquiries, such as requests for clarification or information concerning this solicitation, MUST be in writing and include “FA8751-15-R-0018” in the subject line. When addressing questions concerning any aspect of the solicitation, state the page number, section, and paragraph number needing clarification. Submit inquiries to Meghan.Thomas.1@us.af.mil with a copy to John.Haberer@us.af.mil.

METHODS OF RESPONSE

If submitting a paper copy of the proposal, offerors must submit it as dictated in blocks 8 and 13 of this solicitation. If submitting an email copy of the proposal, offerors must submit to Meghan.Thomas.1@us.af.mil with a copy to John.Haberer@us.af.mil. Receipt of either of these copies prior to the posted solicitation closing time will be considered timely. A courtesy E-mail response should be sent. However, only the hard copy form of response will considered official. E-mail responses alone will not be considered. Facsimile and alternate proposals will not be considered.

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD. This is a competitive best value source selection restricted to Small Business concerns conducted in accordance with trade-off source selection process pursuant to FAR part 15, as supplemented, in which competing offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to price considerations. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Initially, offers shall be ranked according to price. The cost or price factor will be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria:

(i) Reasonableness – the degree to which the proposed coefficient factor compares to the factor a reasonable and prudent person would expect to incur for the same or similar goods or services in the Utica/Rome, New York area. The evaluation for award will be based upon a comparison of the Offeror’s proposed coefficient factor to that reported in the current R.S. Means, Inc. ® Unit Price Book (UPB) for the Utica/Rome area. Unreasonably high or low coefficient factor percentage may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirements or the coefficient represents an unacceptable risk. Coefficients proposed at less than 1.0 would indicate a decrease to the R.S. Means, Inc. ® UPB with City Cost Index (CCI) adjustment and would require further explanation as to why it should be considered reasonable. The Offeror may provide examples and rationale of why a low coefficient should be considered.

B. TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY: Next, the Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals submitted by the Offerors with the most reasonable coefficient, on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation in terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

(i) In order for an Offeror’s proposal to be considered Technical Acceptable it must include proof of an online subscription to the R.S. Means, Inc. If the Contractor does not have a current subscription, they will need to certify that if chosen as the successful Offeror they will provide proof of a subscription no later than five (5) days after award notification.

Table B-1. Technical Ratings

C. PAST PERFORMANCE. The contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on all offerors based on (i) responses to the past performance questionnaires for the offeror’s past and present efforts provided by their references and (ii) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. To assess performance, the Government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources, such as other Federal and other governmental agencies, commercial sources, and Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS) within the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).

(1) To be considered RELEVANT, efforts performed by the offeror must be ongoing or have been completed successfully within the last five (5) years and have included work involving one or more of the following criteria:

· An effort performed by the offeror completed within the last three (3) years which included installation of power distribution equipment including switchgear (at least 2000 Amp), 3-phase dry-type transformers (at least 150 kVA), and associated distribution and branch circuit panel boards.

· An effort performed by the offeror completed within the last three (3) years which included installation of interior and/or exterior lighting that included LED luminaires with dimming capability and lighting controls which included photo-sensors and/or motion detectors.

· An effort performed by the offeror completed within the last three (3) years which included installation of 3-phase motors (208V or 480V) including motor control centers and/or variable frequency drives.

· An effort performed by the offeror completed within the last three (3) years which included either:

· Installation of an addressable fire alarm system covering an entire building including main fire alarm control panels, notification appliances, and initiating devices, or

· Installation of an addressable control system including network and input/output wiring of controllers.

NOTE: Efforts involving a greater number of the above criteria will have greater impact on the confidence assessment.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP based on the offeror’s demonstrated experience.

The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in the table below.

Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

D. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts that are more recent.

E. If the offeror with the most reasonable coefficient is judged to have a Substantial Confidence past performance assessment, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

F. If the offeror with the most reasonable coefficient deemed technically acceptable is not judged to have a Substantial Confidence past performance assessment, the next reasonable coefficient technically acceptable offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until a technically acceptable offeror is judged to have a Substantial Confidence past performance assessment or until all technically acceptable offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision if the the most reasonable coefficient technically acceptable proposal is not rated as Substantial Confidence in the past performance assessment.

G. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

H. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FA8751-15-R-0018

Electrical IDIQ

PAGE

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FA8751-15-R-0018

Electrical IDIQ