Supplies, Services, and Material Management Division Ford House Office Building, Room H2-263 Washington, DC 20515 202.226.2557 www.aoc.gov

Solicitation: AOCSSB26R0023

Release Date: 03/16/2026

Section L: Instructions to Offeror

Section M: Basis for Award

The Architect of the Capitol (AOC); Supplies, Services, and Material Management Division (SSMMD) is issuing Request for Proposal (RFP) # AOCSSB26R0023 for Conservation and Stabilization of the Plaster and Decorative Paint at the President’s Room Ceiling, S-216, United States Capitol Building.

This RFP will potentially result in the award of one (1) contract to the responsible Offeror that is actively registered in System for Award Management (SAM) and whose proposal provides the overall best value to the AOC in accordance with the requirements set forth by this solicitation and the Statement of Work

(SOW).

This solicitation will use the procedures in the AOC Contracting Manual, Chapter IX Acquisition Process,

9.1 Negotiated Acquisitions, 9.1.2 Source Selection Process, (a) Tradeoff Process.

Offeror(s) is/are advised the AOC is not subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), but follows the AOC Contracting Manual which can be found here: https://www.aoc.gov/sites/default/files/2023- 01/AOC-Order-34-1_Contracting-Manual-2022.pdf

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for this requirement is 541990 All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services. This acquisition does NOT establish a set-aside and is open to all businesses, regardless of size, that are registered in SAM

The McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act (SCA) is not applicable to this procurement due to all personnel are considered professional roles as per the EAP Exemptions: Individuals in bona fide Executive, Administrative, or Professional roles.

The contract period of performance will have a 6-month base period from date of award and a 16-month option period.

The List of Attachments is in Section J of the RFP.

http://www.aoc.gov/

Washington, DC 20515

Section L: Instructions to Offeror

L.1 General Conditions

The submission of a proposal to the Government shall constitute the Offeror’s acknowledgement, agreement and compliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP. The Government will not be obligated to pay any cost incurred by a contractor in the preparation and submission of a proposal. The Offeror is cautioned to ensure that their proposal submissions are complete and reflective of the evaluation criteria and requirements described herein. The Offeror is encouraged to provide their best terms with their initial Offeror submission. The Offeror shall not assume that the Government will afford an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or revise a proposal. The Government reserves the right to allow the Offerors to address weaknesses and or deficiencies and revise their proposals if it determines that it is in the best interest of the Government.

Proposals shall be valid for 120 days from the date of Offeror’s submission.

Any exceptions or conditional assumptions taken with respect to the requirements outlined in the RFP or SOW shall be fully explained in the Offeror’s Introductory Letter. The Government cautions the Offeror that taking exception to any term or condition may render their proposal non-responsive and the Offeror will be ineligible for an award unless the RFP expressly authorizes such an exception with regards to a specific term or condition.

L.2 SITE VISIT, QUESTIONS AND PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS

All correspondence related to this solicitation, including questions and proposal submittals, shall be directed only to the Contracting Officer, Troy Dorsey, via e-mail at troy.dorsey@aoc.gov and Contract Specialist Lily Najera at lily.najera@aoc.gov. E-mail messages shall not exceed 20 MB. If necessary, offerors shall compress files with a .zip extension.

L.2.1 Site Visit

A NON-MANDATORY site visit will be held at the Capitol Building, room S-216 on:

Tuesday, April 7, 2026, at 1:00 PM EDT

To attend the site visit, all companies MUST register with the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist via email at troy.dorsey@aoc.gov and lily.najera@aoc.gov. There is a maximum of three (3) individuals per firm.

The attendee information shall be submitted by Wednesday April 1st at 4PM.

Attendance requests received after this date may not be able to be accommodated. Specific instructions such as location meeting time, security requirements, etc. will be distributed to all attendees by Friday April 3rd at 4PM.

http://www.aoc.gov/ mailto:troy.dorsey@aoc.gov

Washington, DC 20515

L.2.2 Questions Due Date

Questions about the technical or contractual details of this procurement must be submitted in writing ONLY to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist via email at troy.dorsey@aoc.gov and lily.najera@aoc.gov no later than:

Wednesday, April 8, 2026, at 4:00 PM EDT

When submitting questions, please include the RFP #, Company Name and the word “Questions” in the subject line of the email. Questions submitted after this cut-off will be responded to at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Answers to all questions will be provided in writing only, as an amendment to the RFP.

L.2.3 Proposal Due Date

Proposals must be submitted ONLY to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist via email at troy.dorsey@aoc.gov and lily.najera@aoc.gov no later than:

Monday, April 20, 2026, at 2:00 PM EDT

Proposals received after this date and time shall be considered late and shall not be accepted by the Government unless it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

L3. Volume and Organization:

The proposal shall be clearly and concisely written, as well as being neat, indexed and logically assembled as described herein. The Offeror is advised to supply all information in the sequence and format specified in the table below. The submitted proposal must provide a sufficient basis for a thorough evaluation and contain the information necessary for evaluation. The Government will not assume the Offeror possesses any capability, understanding, or commitment not specified in the proposal. The proposal must not merely repeat the solicitation and Statement of Work requirements but rather must provide convincing documentary evidence in support of conclusive statements of how contract requirements will be met.

The proposal shall be prepared in separate volumes: Volume I – Technical and Volume II – Price. The Offeror shall provide the requested information within the designated volume. Any requested information placed outside of the designated location shall not be considered or evaluated under that evaluation factor regardless of whether it is located somewhere else in the proposal. For the technical proposal to be strictly evaluated on the merit of the material submitted, Volume I and Volume II shall be submitted as separate documents. Pricing is prohibited in, and shall be omitted from, Volume I. Each volume shall be indexed by evaluation factor.

Volumes shall be organized in the following manner:

http://www.aoc.gov/

Washington, DC 20515

Volume Factor Title Page Limit (Not to Exceed)

I

NA Cover Page/Introductory Letter/Executive Summary

N/A

1 Corporate Experience 10-page limit

2 Technical Approach 10-page limit

3 Key Personnel 4 pages per resume for the Key Personnel

4 Past Performance 3-page limit per contract

II

5 Price N/A

SF-33 Reps and Certs, all SF-30 Amendments

N/A

All pages in Volume I, except the introductory letter, shall include page numbering.

The Table of Contents does not count towards the page count.

Content that is outside the Page Limits in the above chart will be redacted and not evaluated by the Government.

L.3.1 Document Size and Formatting:

Written materials shall be submitted 1 sided single-spaced pages using standard 8 ½” x 11” size with a minimum of 1” margins. Font size shall be Times New Roman, Calibri, or similar fonts with a minimum of 12-point size for text and 10-point size for tables and graphics.

L.3.2 Introductory Letter:

The following introductory information is required before the first index of Volume I:

a. RFP Number & Title;

b. Name and address of Offeror;

c. Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) & cage code;

d. Name, telephone number, and e-mail address of Offeror main point-of-contact;

e. Date of submission;

f. Name, title, and signature of authorized representative;

g. Name and business address of all subcontractors; and

h. All technical factor assumptions to the RFP and SOW shall be identified in this section.

Pricing assumptions shall be identified in Volume II. Exceptions identified in other areas of the Proposal will not be considered.

Washington, DC 20515

L.3.3 Factor 1 – Corporate Experience:

The Offeror shall provide a narrative of at least three (3) projects within the past five (5) years of similar size, scope, and complexity that involved the conservation of murals and paintings. Included details for each reference must include:

a. Project title

b. Contract description to include artist, medium, date, and location

c. The organization’s name and address

d. Details for a point of contact (including telephone number, title and e-mail address)

e. Contract Total Dollar value

f. Contract Type (i.e. Firm-Fixed Price, Time & Materials, or Cost Reimbursement)

g. Contract Period of Performance

h. Summary of the project and work performed, including materials and methods used, before, during, and after photographs (overall and sample detail), and explanation of relevance to this project

L.3.4 Factor 2 – Technical Approach:

The Offeror shall submit a narrative of the processes the firm will use to implement the conservation of both murals and paintings in a variety of mediums in a historic monumental building as required in Section 1.4 of the SOW. The narrative shall include:

a. Overall approach and methods specific to scope of work for this project.

b. A sample conservation report prepared by the Offeror within the last 5 years. The sample conservation report shall include photo documentation. The sample report shall be provided in electronic copy.

L.3.5 Factor 3 – Key Personnel:

The Offeror shall provide the following information for the Key Personnel factor to demonstrate that the proposed individual has the experience required as outlined in Section C.15.1 of the Statement of Work.

a. The Offeror shall provide a resume of the proposed Key Personnel. The resume shall include a list of mural and painting conservation projects/contracts on which the person provided expertise similar to that proposed for this project within the past ten (10) years.

b. The Offeror shall provide for the Senior Fine Art Painting Conservator/Project Director, a list of three (3) references who can provide feedback regarding the person’s technical capabilities.

Information provided for each reference shall include a contact name, company, phone number, address, and e-mail address.

Washington, DC 20515 202.226.2557 www.aoc.gov

L.3.6 Factor 4 – Past Performance:

Offerors shall provide the point of contact for the three contracts specified in their Corporate Experience section and ask their past customers to fill out the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment J.9) via e-mail. All completed questionnaire forms must be emailed directly to the Contracting Officer at troy.dorsey@aoc.gov and Contract Specialist Lily Najera at lily.najera@aoc.gov by the proposal submission due date noted in section L.2. The complete questionnaire will be used to collect and validate past performance information.

L.3.7 Factor 5 (Non-Technical) Price:

Offeror shall provide a completed Pricing Template (Attachment J.3). The Offeror shall not add additional labor categories, hide any cost cells, or edit the price template in any other way. All dollar values shall not exceed two decimal places.

Standard Form 33 (Provision Fill-Ins):

Offerors shall complete all provision fill-ins in the Standard Form (SF) 33, Section K - Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors or Respondents. Offerors shall also complete Page 1 of SF-33, boxes 12-18. The entire form shall be returned in PDF format in Volume II.

http://www.aoc.gov/ mailto:lily.najera@aoc.gov

Washington, DC 20515

Section M.1. Basis for Award:

The Government anticipates awarding to the Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, as determined by the evaluation criteria described herein.

The Trade-Off approach will be used in evaluating the Offeror’s proposal and an award will be based on a detailed evaluation of all factors outlined below.

Evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the procedures defined below. The Government will first verify the on-time submission of all quotations. The Contracting Officer will verify the proposal meets the Volume and Organization structure described in Section L.3. Volume I of the proposals that meet the requirements of Section L.3 will be submitted to the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) for evaluation. The TEP will evaluate each proposal against the evaluation criteria. Each non-price factor will be assigned a rating in accordance with the Ratings Table in M.2. Once all Volume I proposals are evaluated, the TEP will evaluate Volume II, Price in accordance with the evaluation criteria for this factor.

The Government will reserve the right to make an award without discussions if there is a fully acceptable proposal received in the initial submissions. If the Government decides to conduct discussions and allow quotation revisions, the Government will allow revisions from Offerors who are acceptable and above. As an alternative, the Government may elect to form a negotiation range. There will be no common cutoff dates for resubmissions, and the Government may conduct multiple rounds of exchanges with Offerors to resolve previously unresolved matters or issues that arise as a result of the responses without re-engaging with Offerors who are not similarly suited. Once the Government determines the contractor that is the best-suited (i.e., the apparent successful contractor), the Government reserves the right to communicate with only that contractor to address any remaining issues, if necessary, and finalize an award with that contractor. These issues may include technical or price. The Government also reserves the right to make no award.

Evaluations will be based on a complete assessment of the proposal submission. Proposals will be evaluated on the following technical factors, listed in descending order of importance, and then the non-technical factor, Price. The technical factors when combined are considered significantly more important than price. If two or more proposals are determined not to have any substantial technical differences (i.e., are technically equivalent), price may become the determining factor and award may be made to the lower priced proposal.

Non-Price Factors:

Factor 1: Corporate Experience Factor 2: Technical Approach Factor 3: Key Personnel Factor 4: Past Performance

Washington, DC 20515

Price Factors:

Factor 5: Price

The evaluation criteria for each factor are as follows:

M.1.1 Factor 1- Corporate Experience:

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror provided three contracts (of similar size, magnitude, complexity, and scope to this requirement) that demonstrated the contractor’s ability to satisfactorily provide the requested services and references increase the likelihood of successful contract performance.

M.1.2 Factor 2- Technical Approach:

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s technical approach for items L.3.4 Factor 2 a and b demonstrate an understanding of the scope of work in the SOW, demonstrates a sound, practical and feasible approach for the scope of work and will satisfy the government’s requirements.

M.1.3 Factor 3- Key Personnel:

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror demonstrates:

a. their ability to provide experienced and qualified staff as outlined in Section 15.0 Key Personnel of the SOW.

b. the proposed key personnel possess the education, expertise, abilities, and experience necessary to successfully manage and complete requirements of similar size, magnitude, complexity, and scope.

M.1.4 Factor 4- Past Performance:

The Government will evaluate PPQs and the Government may also use information obtained from other sources to evaluate past performance. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and similar databases. The Government reserves the right to use the additional information received/retrieved in its evaluation of the offeror’s Past Performance.

The Government will evaluate:

a. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates their ability to successfully deliver the requested services of similar size, magnitude, complexity, and scope to this requirement; and

Washington, DC 20515

b. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates their degree of customer satisfaction or evidence of the same.

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably, but will instead receive an overall rating of “neutral.”

M.1.5 Factor 5- Price:

Price will not be rated adjectivally but will be evaluated based on a comprehensive review. The price proposal will be evaluated with respect to accuracy and completeness based on information submitted in the offeror’s written submission. This process will involve verification that figures are correctly calculated, prices are presented in the requested format, and any applicable discounts are accurate.

Additionally, the Government may utilize one or more of the following methods to evaluate price:

• Comparison to other prices received;

• Comparison and/or analysis based on Independent Government Cost Estimate; or

• Comparison/analysis to historical cost or publicized pricing

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for price reasonableness to prevent the Government from paying too much for the services outlined in the SOW. Additionally, a price realism analysis may be performed to determine whether a offeror’s price is unrealistically low. An unrealistically low price proposal may question whether an offeror fully understands the size, magnitude, complexity, and scope of service outlined in the SOW. An unrealistic price may serve as a rejection of the proposal.

M.2 Non-Price/Technical Adjectival Ratings:

The evaluation of proposals is critically important as this process assesses the Offerors’ proposed solution and ability to perform. This process includes examining the proposal in detail against the evaluation factors and criteria set forth in the solicitation and assigning a rating with a supporting narrative. The technical evaluation process consists of two phases: individual technical evaluations and the technical consensus. Following each panel member’s individual evaluation, the Chairperson of the TEP will lead the panel in developing a consensus rating of the proposal based on the ratings in section M.2. Offerors who rate below Acceptable under Factors 1, 2, and 3 will not be eligible for award and their price (Factor 5) will not be evaluated.

During the evaluation, the TEP will evaluate proposals for Significant Strengths, Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, and Deficiencies. The definitions of these terms are as follows:

Significant Strengths: A strength that appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance.

Washington, DC 20515

Strengths: Any aspect of a proposal which exceeds a requirement and increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

Weaknesses: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weaknesses: A weakness that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Non-Price RATING DEFINITIONS

The Government will evaluate non-price factors 1, 2 and 3 of Volume I using the following adjectival ratings and definitions scale.

Outstanding The proposal provides a very clear, comprehensive and detailed response which meets all requirements and includes significant strengths with no deficiencies or significant weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in outstanding performance.

Good The proposal provides a sound response which meets all requirements and includes strengths with no deficiencies and few weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low as the proposal demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in satisfactory performance.

Acceptable The proposal provides a response which is capable of meeting all requirements but includes both strengths and weaknesses with no deficiencies. Strengths are not outweighed by the weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate as the proposal demonstrates a general understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in satisfactory performance.

Marginal The proposal provides a response which does not meet all requirements and includes strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies.

Strengths are outweighed by the weaknesses and/or deficiencies. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high as the proposal does not demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in unsatisfactory performance.

Unacceptable The proposal provides a response that does not meet all requirements and includes significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies which far outweigh any strengths. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very high as the proposal does not demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and will result in unsatisfactory performance.

Washington, DC 20515

The Government will rate factor 4, Past Performance, using the following adjectival ratings and definitions scale.

Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent (5 years) and relevant (similar in size, scope, and complexity of this effort) performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent (5 years) and relevant (similar in size, scope, and complexity of this effort) performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent (5 years) and relevant (similar in size, scope, and complexity of this effort) performance record, the Government has a limited expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform.

No Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent (5 years) and relevant (similar in size, scope, and complexity of this effort) performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

The Offeror does not have recent (5 years) and relevant (similar in size, scope, and complexity of this effort) performance; or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse; a meaningful confidence rating cannot be reasonably assigned.