Section_L_-_Instructions_to_Offerors _Section_M_-_MAMC_Bethune_Council_House.docx

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.215-1 – INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS:

A. 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, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. 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. The response shall consist of two (2) separate parts: Part I - Price Proposal, and Part II – Technical Proposal.

B. 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 the 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. 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.

1. PART I – PRICE PROPOSAL - Submit original and one (1) copy

(a) Complete blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20A, 20B, 20C of the RFP Section A, SF1442. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP Sections A through K. These sections constitute the model contract.

(b) Insert proposed quantity, unit of issue, and unit price in the bid schedule. – Note – this is not a complete list of all cost objectives to complete this work and is merely a guide to assist in price evaluation. Contractors should verify all information in the solicitation with field conditions.

(c) Provide a total price inclusive of all labor, supervision, material, tools, equipment, supplies, transportation and incidentals necessary to complete the requirement. Please do not include additive bid item – Fire Hydrant.

(d) Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections I through K. Section K shall be returned in its entirety, or proof of completion at www.sam.gov is acceptable in lieu of completing Section K. For Sections C through I, the offeror shall submit only those pages that require a fill-in.

2. PART II – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL – Limited to no more than 15 pages (does not include past performance references). Submit original and one (1) unpriced copy without contractor logo or other identifying information

(a) The Technical Proposal shall be clear and concise. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but shall address how the offeror intends to meet the requirements. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

(b) The Technical Proposal shall be prepared with the evaluation criteria for award set forth in Section M of this solicitation.

Subfactor 1-Technical Approach: The offeror shall submit a technical narrative, which describes the approach of the offeror to complete the requirement in accordance with all attachments (drawings, specifications, submittal log, etc.); and all applicable laws, regulations, and policy.

Subfactor 2- Past Performance Information - Limited to no more than 3 pages per contract listed. Only references for relevant past efforts/contracts are desired. Submit original. The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. Recent performance in contracts within the last three (3) years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation. Performance Confidence assessment will be based on:

(a) Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Three Years: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrate customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for relevant past efforts/contracts (similar in scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires). In addition, 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, etc.

(b) Past Performance References: The government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror's performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFP. The government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources of information available to the Government to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

Provide a list of at least three (3), but no more than five (5), of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of this RFP.

The performance confidence assessment will 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 instant acquisition. Furnish the following information for each contract listed:

(i) Company/Division name

(ii) Product/Service

(iii) Contracting Agency/Customer

(iv) Contract Number

(v) Contract Dollar Value

(vi) Period of Performance

(vii) Verified, up-to-date name, address, FAX & telephone number of the contracting officer

(viii) Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

(ix) Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

(x) Explain in sufficient detail which aspects of each contract are deemed relevant to the proposed effort.

(xi) Indicate if the offeror was the prime contractor or a subcontractor and provide the name of the prime contractor if the offeror was a subcontractor. Indicate the percentage of the project actually performed by the offeror and the type of work that was performed. If the offeror performed as part of a teaming arrangement or joint venture, indicate the names of all team members and the work performed by each. If necessary, the offeror may include additional comments to clarify the relevancy of the project.

If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past/present performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contracts. To be considered as a teaming arrangement, both partners in the proposed arrangement shall have staff located on-site. In addition, a clear description of how the partnership arrangement will work; chain of responsibilities, line of authority and the personnel on-site who have authority to speak for and bind the partnership in matters relating to this offer.

(c) 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 that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

Subfactor 2 Criteria- “Relevant” performance is defined in Table 1. Past Performance Relevancy Rating (Section M). The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance.

D. Documents submitted in response to this RFP must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:

1. Requirements of the RFP (Bid Sheet, Drawings, Specififications) and government standards, policies, and regulations pertaining to the requirement.

2. Evaluation Factors for Award in Section M of this RFP.

3. Any limitation on the number of proposal pages. Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth in this Section L will not be read or evaluated, and will be removed from the proposal.

4. Format for proposal Part I and II:

(a) The proposals will be 8 1/2” x 11” paper except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams which may not exceed 11” x 17”.

(b) A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information.

(c) Typing shall not be less than 12 pitch.

(d) Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are not desired or required. E. General Information

1. Information regarding submission of proposals: Hand carried or mailed proposals must be delivered to the following address:

NPS, NCR - Regional Contracting

ATTN: DANIEL JACKSON

Acquisition Management Division 1100 Ohio Drive SW Mail Room Washington DC 20242-0001

2. The sealed envelope or package used to submit your proposal must show the time and date specified for receipt, the solicitation number, and the name and address of the offeror.

3. Alternatively, offerors may submit electronically by emailing to Daniel_Jackson@nps.gov. Alternate email Sharee_Satterwhite@nps.gov.

3. Offerors are cautioned that National Capital Region may have increased security measures in place. SOME DELAY SHOULD BE EXPECTED WHEN HAND-CARRYING PROPOSALS. Offerors should allow sufficient time to obtain a visitor pass and arrive at the contracting annex prior to the time specified for receipt. Late proposals may be processed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c) (3).

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors' technical proposal will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to cost or price considerations. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Price Evaluation. The government shall rank all offers by price (not including additive bid item – Fire Hydrant). An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number or Subcontract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each.

B. Technical: The proposals shall be evaluated, starting with the lowest priced offer, against the following subfactors:

1. Technical Approach.

2. Past Performance Information

B.2. Past Performance Information: Using questionnaires, the contracting officer shall seek past performance information on all offerors based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

C. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving Historic Masonry, and associated trades for repairing & altering historic facilities that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The purpose of the performance confidence assessment is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offeror’s technical approach and demonstrated present and past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of High Confidence, Significant Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Unknown Confidence, Little Confidence, or No Confidence, as defined in Table 3 (see below). Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

Table 1. Past Performance Relevancy Rating

TABLE 2. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

D. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

E. If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have a High Confidence 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 lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a High Confidence performance confidence assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a High Confidence performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

G. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L – Instructions to Offerors. Offeror’s 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 would not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

I. 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.