Instructions to Offerors_Solicitation W912DR-26-Q-1B3Q_.pdf

w

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

Quotes shall be submitted via e-mail to eulanda.a.scott-shingleton@usace.army.mil.

Offers shall be prepared in accordance with these instructions, providing all required information in the specified format. Official submission will be documented in accordance with the date and time stamp of the email submission.

1. Questions concerning this solicitation must be submitted in writing by email to eulanda.a.scott-shingleton@usace.army.mil no later than Monday, 16 February at

12:00 PM EST.

2. Site Visit: To schedule a site visit, prospective bidders are advised to contact Leon

Melton at (410)-962-0670 or by email at leon.a.melton@usace.army.mil to register for one.

The offeror should visit the site and take such other steps as may be reasonably necessary to ascertain the nature and location of the work and the general and local conditions that can affect the work or the cost thereof. Failure to do so will not relieve offeror from the responsibility for estimating properly the difficulty or cost of successfully performing the work. The Government will assume no responsibility for any understanding or representations concerning conditions made by any of its officers or agents prior to the execution of the contract, unless included in the Request for Quotation, the specifications or related documents. See FAR 52.236-3, entitled “Site Investigation and Conditions Affecting the Work.” In no event shall failure to inspect the site constitute grounds for a claim after contract award. Please bring valid photo identification and a copy of the solicitation for verification purposes.

Location:

2 Hopkins Plaza, Baltimore, MD 21201

3. Required System for Award Management Registration.

By submission of a quote, the Offeror acknowledges the requirement that prospective awardee must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database prior to award, during performance, and through final payment of any contract resulting from this proposal. Lack of registration in the SAM database will make an Offeror ineligible for award. Offerors and contractors may obtain information on registration and annual confirmation requirements by calling 1-888-227-2423, or at: http://www.sam.gov.

4. Submission Requirements.

a. Cover Letter on Offeror’s letterhead. Letter shall summarize the pricing total and include

Offeror specific details such as CAGE Code, Tax ID#, and UEI #. Letter shall be signed by the representative managing the account.

mailto:eulanda.a.scott-shingleton@usace.army.mil mailto:leon.a.melton@usace.army.mil http://www.sam.gov/

b. Capability Statement. The proposed capabilities should include adequate documentation to illustrate the Offeror’s capabilities to successfully complete the work identified within the solicitation.

c. Two (2) Past Performance references for similar projects. Projects must have been completed within the previous five (5) years, and/or

d. Two (2) Past Performance Questionnaires below or references.

e. Bid Schedule – Government template provided.

5. Evaluation Criteria Rating.

The Government will award a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the requirements as stated in this request for quotation (RFQ). The award will be made using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) method based on the following three (3) evaluation factors: Technical, Past Performance, and Price. The Government intends to evaluate quotes and make award without questions to Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror's initial quote should contain the Offeror's best terms from a technical and cost standpoint. The Government reserves the right to ask questions of Offerors if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary.

1. Technical – To be technically acceptable, the Offeror must provide information as specified in the attached Scope of Work and in the above Submission Requirements. Each submittal will be evaluated to ensure requirements are met.

The responsiveness and quality of information delivered by the Technical Service Department contacts provided shall also be considered in evaluating technical acceptability.

Table A-1. Technical Acceptability

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the RFQ (Request for Quotation)

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the RFQ

2. Past Performance – Past performance refers to the quality of recent project experience from the customer’s perspective. The Offeror shall arrange for the reference customer point of contact for three projects to fill out the Questionnaire and return to Eulanda Scott-Shingleton, e-mail at eulanda.a.scott-shingleton@usace.army.mil.

Past Performance for similar projects within the last three (3) years (Past Performance) will be evaluated utilizing the information provided by the Contractor, the Past Performance Questionnaires, two (2) references and by checking other sources such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

Any Offeror who has demonstrated satisfactory past performance will be mailto:eulanda.a.scott-shingleton@usace.army.mil mailto:eulanda.a.scott-shingleton@usace.army.mil considered eligible for award. Any Offeror who demonstrated unsatisfactory past performance will not be considered eligible for award. If the Government does not obtain past performance information for the projects identified by the Offeror and cannot establish a past performance record for the Offeror through other sources, or if the Offeror has no past performance record and cannot tie significant, relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project to cited experience, past performance will be evaluated acceptable, unacceptable, or neutral.

The following adjectival ratings will be assigned to the Past Performance factor

RATING DESCRIPTION

ACCEPTABLE Past performance references and /or PPQ has satisfactory ratings and clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Past performance references and/ or PPQ has unsatisfactory ratings and clearly does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

NEUTRAL No past performance submitted

3. Price – Price will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.402. The government may require additional pricing information to assist in determining the extent to which the price is fair, and reasonableness and the pricing information shall be provide if requested. The Government will evaluate quotes for award purposes by adding the total of all CLIN prices to ensure that pricing is not unbalanced.

Interested Offerors shall submit a complete price schedule with all line items must be priced. Quotes providing partial pricing shall be considered non-responsive.

USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete

4)

1. Contractor Information

Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information

Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine

How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information

Name Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements, and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts

E VG S M U

N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U

N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U

N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U

N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U

N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project?

E VG S M U

N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U

N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U

N

d) Overall customer satisfaction

E VG S M U

N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements. E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues)

E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below)

Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):