Instructions_to_Offerors_Ft__Cavazos.pdf

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

The Government requests a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) proposal for the subject project as described in the enclosed instructions and Scope of Work. The proposal shall be broken out so that the Work Plan/Design and Installation can be identified separately. This is a competitive SDVOSB set-aside.

DISCLOSURE OF MAGNITUDE

In accordance with FAR 36.204, the disclosure of magnitude for this project is $1M to $5M.

AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS

This RFP is issued subject to availability of funds in accordance with FAR 52.232-18.

WAGE DETERMINATION

This contract is governed by the Davis Bacon Wage Act General Decision Number: TX20250230 found on the following website: https://www.sam.gov/wage-determinations.

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Submit a firm-fixed-price proposal for the project as described in the attached Statement of Work (SOW). Failure to comply with all instructions provided herein shall result in an unsatisfactory proposal rating.

2. Your proposal shall be submitted in electronic format (pdf preferred) with spreadsheets in excel format. Your proposal shall be detailed and explicit and shall include supporting data in enough detail to permit a thorough review and analysis of the technical, and cost and/or price components. No pricing shall be included with the technical proposal. Your proposal will contain three “volumes,” as show below:

Volume Factor Page Limit Volume I Technical Approach & Capabilities 15 pages Volume II Price 5-page limit for the narrative.

No page limit for spreadsheets and back-up data.

Volume III Administrative 5 pages

NOTE: Costs pertaining to proposal preparation will not be paid by the Government. To expedite processing of your proposal, we request that you provide the following:

• Each volume shall be a separate electronic file (or folder inside a zip)

• Proposal signed by an Authorized Official

• Price Proposal in required format

• The Offeror shall provide a schedule with the RFP submission that presents the https://www.sam.gov/wage-determinations logic and duration to meet milestone dates as defined in SOW.

a. All information will be protected as procurement sensitive. All proposal documents, except schedules and drawings, shall be formatted to be legible when printed on 8 1/2 X 11-inch paper to include spreadsheets (with appropriate page breaks, headers and footers). The schedule and any drawings shall be provided on 11x17 pages. All documents and spreadsheets shall include: the Offeror’s Name, SOW Title, “Sugarloaf Multi-Use (SLMU) Environmental Resilience Range Repairs”, Volume number, and Date. The technical proposal shall be submitted in Adobe PDF. Spreadsheets shall be submitted as unlocked Microsoft Excel worksheets.

b. Identify the primary and alternate project point of contacts (POCs) for this effort. Include the following POC information: Name, office telephone number(s), mobile telephone number(s), and e-mail address(es).

c. The Offeror shall not engage in any form of contact with installation personnel regarding this requirement prior to contract award.

d. The government does not intend to respond to any technical questions after the solicitation is issued, however, offerors may still submit questions with the understanding that there is no guarantee of response. Offerors shall make and explicitly identify any assumptions in their proposal to accommodate any scope uncertainties.

e. Offerors are requested to furnish their proposal by electronic transmission not later than

1200 (CST), Monday, 14 April 2025 to Zain Abbas, Contract Specialist, at zain_abbas@ibc.doi.gov and Kavi Spence, Contracting Officer, at kavi_spence@ibc.doi.gov.

f. There will be no additional site visit because one was already offered in the pre-solicitation notice (DOIDFBO250020) posted to SAM on February 21, 2025, for this requirement.

BASIS OF AWARD

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible SDVOSB offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Government will make award using the best value trade off process. In accordance with FAR 2.101, “Best value” means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. The best value is determined by comparing differences in the value of non-price features and the price in accordance with the relative importance of the evaluation factors. In making this comparison, the Government is more concerned with obtaining superior non-price factors than with establishing a contract at the lowest overall price to the Government.

The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with mailto:zain_abbas@ibc.doi.gov mailto:kavi_spence@ibc.doi.gov.

offerors. Therefore, the initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest; accept other than the lowest offer; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received. The Government also reserves the right to make no award.

Evaluation Factors are fully described in the following pages, but their relative importance is listed immediately below:

Evaluation Factors are listed in relative order of importance:

1. Past Performance

2. Technical Approach & Capabilities

3. Price

Past Performance and Technical Approach and Capabilities when combined are significantly more important than Price.

FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

WHAT THE OFFEROR WILL PROPOSE

There is no submission requirement for past performance. Offerors must NOT submit past performance as part of their proposal. The Government will obtain information about the Offeror’s past performance from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) (https://www.cpars.gov) or from its own records or personnel’s personal knowledge of previous contract performance. Past Performance will be evaluated, but the Offeror is not required to provide any documents for consideration for Factor 1.

HOW THE GOVERNMENT WILL EVALUATE FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the vendor's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that vendor's record of past performance. The vendor's past performance rating will be based on data obtained from sources such as the CPARS and the personal knowledge of the offeror’s performance on previous task orders. Past performance of prime contractors whose firms are divided into severable segments (i.e. division, group, unit, etc.) will only be evaluated as it relates to those segments of the firm(s) that will perform the work.

Data such as CPARS records will first be reviewed to determine the relevancy of the past performance information. Relevancy will be evaluated based on whether the projects are of similar size, scope, magnitude of effort and complexity to the effort described in the SOW. In addition, Recency will play a significant role as well, past performance must have occurred within three years from the closing date of this solicitation.

https://www.cpars.gov/

Past Performance Recency/Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition Relevant and Recent Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires within 3 years of the closing date of this solicitation.

Not Recent and/or Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires or may be outside of the 3 years of the closing date of this solicitation.

Only offerors with recent and relevant past performance will be considered for further consideration.

After the Recency/Relevancy evaluation an adjectival Performance Confidence Rating will be assigned as described in the table below:

Eligible offerors will receive one of the following Performance Confidence Ratings. To be considered awardable, offerors must receive at least an adjectival rating of Some Confidence.

Past Performance is considered the most important factor. Past performance is more important than Technical Approach and significantly more important than Price.

Performance Confidence Rating – Considering the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity System (FAPIIS) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings on previous projects assign an overall confidence rating.

Rating Description

High Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a superior expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Some Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Low Confidence

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a subpar expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a no or little expectation that the offeror will be able to perform the required effort.

FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH & CAPABILITIES

The Offeror shall provide a narrative description of the contractor’s technical solution to achieve the final product. This narrative shall include at a minimum:

• A description in sufficient detail of the contractor’s plan to perform/construct key features of work and provide the deliverables in the attached Scope of Work. This information shall be broken out by discipline or technical feature (architectural, interiors, mechanical, electrical, data / communications, ATFP, as applicable), and explain the benefits of the contractor’s approach in terms of meeting or exceeding the SOW requirement and minimizing disruption to the customer during performance.

Proposals that demonstrate greater understanding of the Scope of Work and the Government’s intent for the project is valued higher. Proposals that fail to include or describe key features of work or equipment shall be deficient. Greater benefit is valued higher. Less disruption to the customer during performance is valued higher.

• Any “Betterments” that exceed the requirements of the Scope of Work or propose a cost efficient or technical savings type of solution that is not specifically described as such in the Scope of Work. The Government understands that the contractor has expertise in construction and encourages innovative and efficient solutions. The contractor shall specifically identify such features as “Betterments” and shall provide a sound rationale on why the feature qualifies as “Betterment.” “Betterments” considered to be of greater value and benefit to the Government will be considered strength to the offerors’ technical solution. Any costs associated with proposed betterments shall be separately priced in the Price section of the proposal. The Government reserves the right to decline any proposed betterments.

• Be sure to clearly distinguish on a separate sheet (not included in the page count) all ASSUMPTIONS and/or EXCEPTIONS.

HOW THE GOVERNMENT WILL EVALUATE FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

& CAPABILITES

The Government will evaluate the technical approach and capability of each offeror for understanding of the SOW, technical feasibility of the proposed approach, realism of the proposed schedule, relevant experience of key personnel, and overall likelihood of success in achieving the Government’s goals as expressed in the SOW. The Government values a demonstrated understanding of the Government’s needs and goals as expressed in the SOW.

The Government values a technical approach that will meet or exceed the requirements of the SOW. The Government values feasible technical approach using known proven methods of execution. The Government values equipment that meets or exceeds standards set forth in the SOW and technical specifications.

The Government values a management capability with shorter lines of communication with fewer intervening levels of management between field personnel and personnel with decision making authority. The Government values a deliberate safety approach that prevents accidents through rigorous adherence to established processes and regular inspections. The Government values understanding of the Fort Cavazos safety program. The Government values personnel with experience in construction directly relevant to the SOW and physical security of access control points.

Proposals must receive at least an adjectival rating of acceptable to be eligible for award.

Adjectival ratings are shown in the table below:

Adjective Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

Technical Approach is considered more important than Price and less important than Past Performance.

FACTOR 3 – PRICE

The offeror will provide a firm-fixed-price proposal in three parts 1) narrative statement including basis of estimate, 2) completed price workbook in Excel spreadsheet and 3) back-up detail such as material quotes and subcontractor proposals. The narrative statement shall clearly state any assumptions, clarifications, or exceptions that may influence the cost of meeting the requirements outlined in the SOW. If there are no assumptions, Offeror shall state that “There are no assumptions, clarifications, or exceptions that may influence the cost of meeting the requirements outlined in the SOW.” The offeror is free to submit any appropriately formatted workbook that clearly shows pricing breakouts consistent with its proposed method of performance and generally accepted accounting principles. Workbook adjustments shall be discussed/tracked in price narrative. The price shall be consistent with the method of performance and materials described in the Technical Approach. The offeror shall provide a breakout of proposed labor hours, labor rates, materials, travel, markups, indirect rates, profit. Any subcontract exceeding $250,000 shall be similarly broken down. Any logical formatting that adheres to generally accepted accounting principles may be used to submit cost/price data and proposal.

HOW THE GOVERNMENT WILL EVALUATE FACTOR 3 – PRICE

The Government will evaluate the price for fairness, reasonableness, completeness, balance, and value. The Government will evaluate the total evaluated price by totaling the prices of all Contract Line Items (CLINs) including options that will be awarded. The Government will evaluate the overall price and the individual CLIN prices to determine whether they are fair and reasonable in accordance with the price and technical analysis techniques at FAR 15.404-1(b) & (e). The Government will evaluate labor rates, indirect rates, and the profit rate for fairness and reasonableness. The Government will not perform Cost Analysis and Cost Realism Analysis;

however, the price proposal must include all essential elements of work and must be consistent with the technical and management approach described by the offeror’s proposal to be considered complete. A proposal that does not price all essential elements of work or that is inconsistent with the proposal technical approach will be considered incomplete and deficient unless the offeror explicitly states in a narrative statement that those portions of the work are purposely gratis to the Government. Failure to include price information for major features of work will be considered a deficiency. Failure to provide the detail breakdown required by the RFP or lump sum pricing of subcontracts over $250,000 will be considered a deficiency. An unreasonably high overall price or unreasonably high CLIN price will be considered a deficiency.

Price will not receive an adjectival rating. Price is less important than Technical Approach and Past Performance when combined.

ADMINISTRATIVE VOLUME & SPECIAL REQUIRMENTS

The administrative volume will contain:

- Cover Letter with Signature binding the offeror to the proposed price and the terms of this solicitation

- Bid Guarantee

- Calculation of compliance with limitations on subcontracting IAW FAR 52.219-14(e)(3)

- Declaration IAW Buy America Action Construction FAR 52.225-9

FAR 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee

(a) Failure to furnish a bid guarantee in the proper form and amount, by the time set for opening of bids, may be cause for rejection of the bid.

(b) The bidder shall furnish a bid guarantee in the form of a firm commitment, e.g., bid bond supported by good and sufficient surety or sureties acceptable to the Government, postal money order, certified check, cashier’s check, irrevocable letter of credit, or, under Treasury Department regulations, certain bonds or notes of the United States. The Contracting Officer will return bid guarantees, other than bid bonds -

(1) To unsuccessful bidders as soon as practicable after the opening of bids; and

(2) To the successful bidder upon execution of contractual documents and bonds

(including any necessary coinsurance or reinsurance agreements), as required by the bid as accepted.

(c) The amount of the bid guarantee shall be 20 percent of the bid price.

(d) If the successful bidder, upon acceptance of its bid by the Government within the period specified for acceptance, fails to execute all contractual documents or furnish executed bond(s) within 10 days after receipt of the forms by the bidder, the Contracting Officer may terminate the contract for default.

(e) In the event the contract is terminated for default, the bidder is liable for any cost of acquiring the work that exceeds the amount of its bid, and the bid guarantee is available to offset the difference.

PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS (POST AWARD SUBMISSION) – Performance and Payment bonds must equal 100 percent of the original contract price and if that contract price increases, an additional amount equal to 100 percent of the increase, per FAR 28.102-2.

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES – As per the base contract, liquidated damages will be imposed at the task order level. Per FAR Clause 52.211-12, Liquidated Damages- Construction, if the contractor fails to complete the work within the time specified in the contract, the Contractor shall pay liquidated damages to the Government in the amount of $950 for each calendar day of delay until the work is completed or accepted by the Government.

Enclosures/ Attachments

1. Ft. Cavazos SOW

2. SOW EXHIBITS

3. Davis-Bacon Act WD # TX20250230