RFP Cover Letter.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE TEST CENTER (AFMC)

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE CALIFORNIA

23 April 2023

COMBINED SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATION

FROM: AFTC/PZIA

Arnold Engineering Development Complex 100 Kindel Drive, Suite A332 Arnold AFB, TN 37389

SUBJECT: Request for Proposal (RFP) FA910123RB017, Invasive Species Plant Control Service

This is a competitive solicitation set-aside 100% for small business. The subject requirement is for a commercial service; as such, this solicitation is prepared in accordance with (IAW) the format in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This solicitation is not authorization to begin performance, and in no way obligates the Government for any costs incurred by the offeror associated with developing a proposal. The Government reserves the right not to award a contract in response to this RFP. Prior to commencement of any activities associated with performance of this requirement, the Government will issue a written directive or contractual document signed by the Contracting Officer with appropriate consideration established.

The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular, FAC 2023-02 dated 16 March 2023, Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation (DFARS) Change 03/22/2023 effective 22 March 2023, and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation (AFFARS) Change 03/01/2023 effective 01 March 2023.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 813312, Environment, Conservation and Wildlife Organizations, with a business size standard of $19.5M. The Product Service Code (PSC) is F099, Natural Resources/Conservation – Other.

The purpose of this solicitation is to procure Invasive Species Plant Control Services to be performed IAW Attachment 1 – PWS. The Arnold Engineering Development Complex (AEDC) at Arnold Air Force Base (AFB) located in Tennessee anticipates the use of a requirements-type contract to allow for firm-fixed price task orders to be issued throughout a five-year ordering period (1 June 2023 – 31 May 2028) as the need for the service arises. Each task order issued will be for a 12-month period of performance. Currently, the Government anticipates that it is likely a total of five task orders will be issued throughout the five-year ordering period, and it is the intent of the Government to issue a task order immediately upon contract award, should a contract be awarded. The initial task order will be the minimum guarantee. Subsequent task orders will be placed as funding becomes available throughout the five-year ordering period.

Provided below are the anticipated Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs), Service Description, Quantities, and Unit of Measure (UoM) for the five-year requirements-type contract:

CLIN Service Description Quantity UoM 0001 Invasive Species Plant Control Service

IAW Attachment 1 – PWS Available Ordering Period: 01 June 2023 – 31 May 2028

1 Each

0002 CDRLs 1 Each

Provided below is the anticipated CLIN, Service Description, Quantity, and UoM for the initial task order, to be issued immediately upon award, should an award be made as a result of this RFP:

CLIN Service Description Quantity UOM 0001 Invasive Species Plant Control Service

IAW Attachment 1 – PWS Period of Performance 12-months

1 EA

*FAR Provision 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Mar 2023) applies to this acquisition and the following addendum applies:

Paragraph (a) first sentence revised as follows: “The NAICS code and small business size standard for this acquisition appear above.”

Paragraph (c) first sentence revised as follows: “The vendor agrees to hold the prices in its proposal firm for 30 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of proposals, unless another time period is specified in an addendum to the proposal.”

RFP due date: 01 May 2023 RFP due time: 1:00 P.M. Central Time Email to: bethany.hill.3@us.af.mil and brooke.vandeman@us.af.mil

Note: .zip files are not an acceptable format for the Air Force Network and will not go through our email system.

All questions regarding this RFP must be emailed to bethany.hill.3@us.af.mil and brooke.vandeman@us.af.mil no later than 1:00 P.M. Central Time on 28 April 2023.

Offerors shall identify any exception to the RFP terms and conditions with supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions are unacceptable. Any exception determined unacceptable by the Government may result in the Offeror’s proposal being determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. If no exceptions are taken, include a statement stating so with the proposal.

Alternate proposals will not be considered for contract award.

Please provide the following information with your proposal:

1. Copy of Herbicide Applicator Licensing for Crew Supervisor(s). The Crew Supervisor(s) shall be a licensed herbicide applicator who is qualified in IPP control and licensed in the appropriate application category. The current applicators license shall be issued from the state of TN Department of Agriculture listing the appropriate application category, current CPR card, and ability to train applicators working under his/her license. For more information pertaining to licensing, please visit the following website:

https://www.tn.gov/agriculture/businesses/pesticides/certification.).

2. Completed “Offeror Certifications” form (RFP Attachment 2) on company letterhead and signed by an authorized company certifying official.

3. List of Key Personnel that includes each Key Personnel’s name, duty title, and contact information.

4. Completed “Demonstrated Past Performance” form (RFP Attachment 3) for no more than three projects that demonstrate past performance in performing the required work IAW Attachment 1 - PWS. The submitted projects shall meet the following minimum conditions:

a. Each project shall be similar (or greater) in size, scope, and complexity of this acquisition.

b. No project may be used more than once.

c. Each project submitted must be ongoing or have been completed within five‐years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

5. Completed “Pricing Worksheet” (RFP - Attachment 4). Offerors shall complete green-colored cells.

All companies must be registered in the System for Award Management at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ to be considered for award. The Government will not provide contract financing for this acquisition. Invoice instructions are provided in Attachment 7 – Provisions and Clauses.

Basis of Award:

A competitive simplified acquisition selection process will be conducted IAW FAR Part 13. Contracts awarded under FAR 13 are not subject to FAR 15.3 procedures. Accordingly, award of a contract under this RFP, should an award be made, shall follow the procedures outlined in FAR 13, as supplemented.

A. Contract award will be made IAW the procedures specified in this RFP, to the Offeror whose proposal results in the best value to the Government. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the RFP’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, licensing, and all other information required by the RFP instructions) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

B. The Government will conduct the award selection and evaluation process in two phases: Phase 1 and Phase

2. In Phase 1, Factor 1 – Technical Approach, will be evaluated. Proposals that receive an acceptable rating for Factor 1 in Phase 1 will be included in Phase 2 evaluations. In Phase 2, Factor 2 – Past Performance and Factor 3 – Price, will be evaluated. The Government will perform a comparative analysis in Phase 2 in order to select the Offeror that is best suited to fulfill the requirements of the RFP. The comparative analysis (comparing proposals to each other) will be based on the Offeror’s responses to Factor 2 – Past Performance and Factor 3

– Price, given their stated relative order of importance. The relative order of importance of Factor 2 and Factor 3 is as follows: Factor 2 – Past Performance is more important than Factor 3 - Price.

C. Interchanges are fluid interaction(s) between the Contracting Officer (CO) and the Offerors that may address any aspect of the proposal and may or may not be documented in real time.

The Government intends to make award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting interchanges. Therefore, each Offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to hold interchanges using Interchange Notices (INs) if, during the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Offeror responses to INs will be considered in making the award selection decision. Interchanges may be conducted with one, some or all Offerors as the Government is not required to conduct interchanges with any or all Offerors responding to this RFP.

Once the Government determines (through the comparative analysis) the Offeror that is best-suited to meet the stated requirements, the Government reserves the right to conduct interchanges with only that Offeror to address any remaining issues, which may include technical or price. If interchanges with the best-suited Offeror do not result in contract award, the Government may conduct interchanges, which may include technical or price, with the next best-suited Offeror, based on the original analysis. This process will continue until a contract is awarded.

D. Evaluation Factors.

As discussed in Paragraph B above, the Government will conduct the award selection and evaluation process in two phases: Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Phase 1: In this phase, responses to this RFP will be evaluated against the following factor:

Factor 1 - Technical Approach

Under this factor, the Government will assign the factor an adjectival rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable, as defined in Table 1 below.

Table 1 – Factor 1 Ratings

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets all measures of merit for Factor 1.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet all measures of merit for Factor 1.

For this factor, the Government will evaluate the proposal using the following measures of merit:

1. Offeror provided a copy of the Herbicide Applicator Licensing for the Crew Supervisor(s) that demonstrates that the Crew Supervisor(s) is a licensed herbicide applicator qualified in IPP control and licensed in the appropriate application category. The current applicators license is issued from the state of TN Department of Agriculture listing the appropriate application category, current CPR card, and ability to train applicators working under his/her license.

2. Offeror provided a completed “Offeror Certifications” form (RFP Attachment 2) on company letterhead, and it is signed by an authorized company certifying official.

3. Offeror provided a list of Key Personnel that includes each Key Personnel’s name, duty title, and contact information.

Note: Proposal must be rated as Acceptable to move to the Phase 2 evaluation.

Phase 2: Proposals rated Acceptable in Phase 1 will be evaluated in Phase 2 against the following factors:

Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Price

The Government will perform a comparative analysis (comparing proposals included in Phase 2 to one another) in order to select the Offeror that is best suited to fulfill the requirements of the RFP. The comparative analysis will be based on the Offeror’s responses to Factor 2 – Past Performance and Factor 3 – Price, given their stated relative order of importance. The relative order of importance for Factor 2 and Factor 3 is as follows: Factor 2 – Past Performance is more important than Factor 3 – Price.

Factor 2: Past Performance

Past performance data should be provided in Attachment 3 – Demonstrated Past Performance. The Past Performance evaluation will result in an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s probability of performing the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation will consider each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in performing services that meet the solicitation requirements. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal and information obtained from other sources available to the Government. All past performance documentation, either provided by the contractor or obtained by the Contracting Officer, will be evaluated to determine relevancy and recency. Each project with past performance information obtained will be given one of the following ratings:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involves similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation involves.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

All past performance documentation, either provided by the contractor or obtained by the Contracting Officer, will be evaluated to determine recency. Each project with past performance information obtained will be given a rating of Recent or Not Recent. The definitions of these ratings are as follows:

All recent and relevant past performance documentation, either provided by the contractor or obtained by the Contracting Officer, will also be evaluated to assess quality. Each project with past performance information obtained will be given one of the ratings defined below:

PAST PERFORMANCE RECENCY RATINGS

RECENT Recent is defined as performance occurring within the last five years from the date of the issuance of the RFP.

NOT RECENT Not Recent is defined as performance occurring more than five years from the date of the issuance of the RFP.

The Government will evaluate all of the ratings provided by all of the sources of past performance information to establish a confidence rating. Only past performance information with a rating of Recent will be utilized to establish this confidence rating. For Offerors with no recent or relevant past performance, a rating of Neutral will be given. A Neutral rating will be considered Satisfactory Confidence. The following ratings will be used in the performance confidence evaluation.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Description

Substantial Confidence (SBC) Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence (STC) Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence (LC) Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence (NC) Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) (UC) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no

Quality Assessment Rating Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered.

Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

GOOD (G) During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M) During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY (U) During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE (N/A) Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The performance confidence rating will be used for the comparative analysis.

Factor 3: Price

Price proposals should be provided in Attachment 4 – Pricing Worksheet and should support the offeror’s proposed Factor 1 ‐ Technical Approach. Price proposals will be evaluated (but not rated). The Government will calculate the Offeror’s Initial Total Evaluated Price (I‐TEP) as follows: first, the Government will compute the average task order price across the five-year ordering period, then the computed average task order price will be multiplied by five to arrive at the I-TEP. After any interchanges, if necessary, the Government will evaluate the Final TEP (F‐TEP). If interchanges do not occur, the I‐TEP will become the F‐TEP. The F-TEP be evaluated in terms of completeness, reasonableness, and balanced pricing. Offerors whose F-TEP is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unbalanced will not be considered for award.

Applicable definitions are outlined below:

Completeness - The Offeror’s price proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements have been addressed. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical proposal and between the initial proposal and any revisions. The review will determine the adequacy of the contractor’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the RFP requirements.

Reasonableness - For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Government will determine prices fair and reasonable through the use of one or more of the price analysis techniques at FAR 13.106-3(a).

Unbalanced pricing - Contractors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. An offer that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

E. The projects submitted by the Offeror to meet Factor 2, Past Performance, and information obtained from sources available to the Government will be used as part of the responsibility determination made IAW FAR 9.104-1. The Government reserves the right to obtain information relative to present and past performance on its own.

FAR Provision 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Alternate I) Dec 2022, applies to this acquisition. All vendors must be registered in System for Award Management at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ at the time of proposal submittal.

FAR clause at 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions-Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Dec 2022), applies to this acquisition with the following Addendum: Paragraph (c) of this clause is tailored as follows: Changes in the terms and conditions of this contract may be made only by written agreement of the parties with the exception of administrative changes, such as changes in the paying office, appropriations data, etc., which may be changed unilaterally by the Government.

Note: The vendor acknowledges that should the proposal terms and conditions and/or agreement conflict with mandatory provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and other Federal law applicable to commercial acquisitions, to the extent of such conflict the FAR and Federal law govern and conflicting vendor terms and conditions and/or agreement are unenforceable and are not considered incorporated into any resultant contract.

FAR clause 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders -- Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Mar 2023), is applicable to this acquisition. For the FAR clauses cited in FAR clause 52.212-5 that are applicable to this acquisition see Attachment 6 – Provisions and Clauses.

For additional FAR provisions and clauses not referenced specifically in this document that apply to this acquisition, see Attachment 6 – Provisions and Clauses. Likewise, for DFARS and AFFARS provisions and clauses that are applicable to this acquisition, see Attachment 6 – Provisions and Clauses. The full text of these clauses and (*) provisions may be assessed electronically at the website acquisition.gov. NOTE: ALL

PROVISIONS WILL BE REMOVED AT TIME OF AWARD BUT SHALL REMAIN PART OF THE

CONTRACT FILE.

BROOKE Z. VANDEMAN

AFTC/PZIA (Arnold) Contracting Officer

Attachments:

Attachment 1 – Performance Work Statement

*Attachment 2 – Offeror Certifications *Attachment 3 – Demonstrated Past Performance *Attachment 4 – Pricing Worksheet Attachment 5 – DRAFT Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) Attachment 6 – Provisions and Clauses

*Attachments are to be completed by offeror and submitted with proposal.