Request_for_Proposal.pdf

U . S . T R A D E A N D D E V E L O P M E N T A G E N C Y

SUBJECT: Request for Proposal for Regional MENA Smart Cities Infrastructure Definitional

Mission (DM)

SOLICITATION NUMBER: RFP-CO201621124

ISSUANCE DATE: March 28, 2016

CLOSING DATE: April 11, 2016, 4:00 PM/EST

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial item prepared in accordance with the format in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.6 and procedures in Subpart 13.1 as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only Request for Proposal (RFP); proposals are being requested and written solicitation will not be issued.

This solicitation is being issued In Accordance With (IAW) FAR Subpart 13.104. The

Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the RFP respondent who is deemed responsible and is determined, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

This procurement is a 100 percent Small Business Set-Aside with a small business size standard of $15M annual sales under NAICS Code 541690. Award is limited to U.S. Firms or U.S.

individuals. Contractor and subcontractor personnel used shall be either U.S. citizens on non-

U.S. citizens lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States. Contractor use of subcontractors is limited to less than fifty percent of the proposed price.

The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through

Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-81.

I. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

The provision at FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial, applies to this acquisition with addendum as follows:

1. Proposal Due Date: Your proposal (technical, past performance, and price) must be received no later than 4:00 P.M., ET on Monday, April 11, 2016. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f).

2. Quotation Submission: Send your proposal by email to contractproposals@ustda.gov.

Proposals submitted by fax or to alternate email addresses will NOT be accepted.

mailto:contractproposals@ustda.gov

3. Questions Relating to This RFP: All questions concerning this solicitation must be directed to Ms. Angela Williams at awilliams@ustda.gov. The question cut-off date is Friday, April 1, 4:00 PM/EST.

4. Notice Regarding Suspension/Debarment/Ineligibility: Any contract awarded to a contractor who, at the time of award, is suspended, debarred, and ineligible for receipt of contract with Government Agencies or in receipt of a notice of proposed debarment from any

Government Agency, is voidable at the option of the Government.

5. System for Award Management (SAM) Database: All Contractors must be registered in the

SAM database via https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ in order to be eligible for contract award. Lack of registration in SAM will make an RFP respondent ineligible for award as described in FAR 52.204-7. However, do NOT delay submission of your proposal pending receipt of a CAGE code.

6. Special Contract Requirements: This Request for Proposal (RFP) includes the following additional contract terms and conditions:

CONTRACTOR FOLLOW-ON (INELIGIBILITY): The Contractor and its subcontractors shall be ineligible to compete for, as a prime or subcontractor or otherwise, USTDA funded activities that result from this contract. USTDA reserves the right to grant a waiver, based upon FAR 9.503, if preclusion of the contractor or its subcontractors from the follow-on activity would not be in the Government's interest.

This restriction shall remain in effect for three years from the completion of this contract.

The contractor agrees to include this provision in all subcontracts to this contract.

7. Contract Clauses: The clauses at 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions-Commercial

Items and 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or

Executive Orders-Commercial Items, 52.222-50, Combat Trafficking in Persons, Alt. I, 52.228-

3, Worker’s Compensation Insurance (Defense Base Act), apply to this acquisition.

8. Definitional Mission Tips: RFP Respondents are encouraged to review the Definitional

Mission tips on USTDA’s website via the following link to better understand USTDA’s expectations for this Definitional Mission:

http://www.ustda.gov/businessopps/dmproposaltips.asp

9. Responses Shall Be Submitted In Two Separate Volumes As Follows:

VOLUME I(a): TECHNICAL PROPOSALS:

**No pricing information shall be included as part of the technical Proposal. All pricing information shall be included in a separate volume **

Technical proposal shall not exceed 15 pages in length. Any additional pages will not be evaluated. The RFP respondent(s) shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the Proposal and provide an adequate basis for evaluation. RFP respondent(s) are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and mailto:awilliams@ustda.gov https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ http://www.ustda.gov/businessopps/dmproposaltips.asp accurate evaluation of each Proposal. No material may be incorporated in the proposal by reference in order to circumvent the page limitation.

The following documents are not included in the page limitation:

a. Cover Page

b. Table of Contents

c. Executive Summary: Although this section will not be evaluated, if included, it should allow technical reviewers to quickly understand the critical elements of the Proposal including the most salient features of the RFP respondents’ technical vision and approach, the key personnel and capabilities to accomplish the desired results. This section shall be limited to 3 pages. Any additional pages will not be reviewed.

d. Resume/Curriculum Vitae (CV): Resumes/Curriculum Vitae (CVs) submitted as part of the Proposal, may not exceed 3 pages per person. Any additional pages shall not be reviewed.

VOLUME I(b): PAST PERFORMANCE:

a. Relevant Past Performance Information:

i. For all Offerors submitting a Proposal:

RFP respondents shall submit a list of no more than three past performance references within the past five years, consisting of the contract number, the entity

(federal, state, or local Government, or private sector) for which the work was performed, a summary of the relevant work, and the name of the person (e.g.

contracting or technical) to be contacted with their address, telephone, and email address. Past performance will be considered relevant if the contract demonstrates relevant experiences that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the effort described in this task order request.

The Government reserves the right to obtain past performance information from any available source, to include the U.S. Government’s Past Performance

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and may contact customers other than those identified by the Offeror when evaluating past performance.

RFP respondents are authorized to provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the Offerors' corrective actions. The Government shall consider this information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the Offeror's past performance. The source selection authority shall determine the relevance of similar past performance information.

1. For RFP Respondents WITH existing and relevant USTDA past performance

Per a.i. above, if some or all of the submitted three past performance references are from USTDA, USTDA will attempt to retrieve records for the referenced past performance effort either from the U.S. Government’s Past Performance

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or from records internal to USTDA or from both. No further action is required by the IQC Contractor.

2. For RFP Respondents WITHOUT existing and relevant

USTDA past performance

Submit the Past Performance Questionnaire (Enclosure 3) to its submitted three references (see a.i.) for completion. The references (not the RFP respondents) must return the completed Questionnaire to the email address indicated no later than the closing date of this solicitation. The Offeror is solely responsible for ensuring the questionnaire is completed and returned by the respective references on or before the deadline. Any past performance questionnaire returned directly by the RFP respondents may not be considered. The Questionnaire includes instructions that must be reviewed and followed carefully. Responses must be typed into the provided, editable Microsoft Office Word Document Past

Performance Questionnaire (RFP Enclosure 3).

In the case of an RFP respondent without any record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) states that the RFP respondent may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The RFP respondents, in this case, shall be rated as “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)" - which is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

VOLUME II: PRICE:

Price Proposal: RFP respondents shall submit their price Proposal using Standard Form (SF)

1449- Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items. Each RFP respondent should ensure the CAGE CODE and DUNS Numbers are placed in Block 17A and complete blocks 24 (with pricing information), 30A, 30B, and 30C.

RFP respondents shall also submit a breakdown of the price Proposal in a Microsoft Excel

Spreadsheet complete with traceable formulas. The price Proposal excel spreadsheet must be accompanied with narratives (to support the price Proposal) in a word document. ALL PRICE

NUMBERS SHALL BE ROUNDED UP, NO CENTS.

II. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

a. EVALUATION FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL: The following two sub-factors are approximately equal:

Sub-factor 1: Technical Experience - The RFP respondent's relevant technical background and professional experience in assessing smart cities infrastructure projects, as it relates to the Statement of Work (SOW), shall be evaluated to determine the likelihood that the RFP respondent can successfully perform the contract requirements and the degree of risk of non-performance.

Sub-factor 2: Technical Approach - The degree to which the technical quote demonstrates and understanding of the requirements shall be evaluated especially as it relates to Sections 1.0 and 6.0 of the SOW.

The impact of the ratings of Technical Sub-factors 1 and 2 on the overall Technical Factor rating is further explained in this paragraph. If the rating of Technical Subfactor 1 (or Technical

Subfactor 2) is Acceptable, then such a rating will have no positive or negative impact on the overall rating for the Technical Factor. For example, if the rating of Technical Subfactor 1 (or

Technical Subfactor 2) is Acceptable and the rating of Technical Subfactor 2 (or Technical

Subfactor 1) is Outstanding, then the overall Technical Factor rating will be Outstanding. On the other hand, if the rating of Technical Subfactor 1 (or Technical Subfactor 2) is Unacceptable, then such a rating will have a negative impact on the overall rating for the Technical Factor. In that case, the overall Technical rating will be Unacceptable —regardless of the rating of

Technical Subfactor 2.

b. EVALUATION FACTOR 2: RELEVANT PAST PERFORMANCE: Government's intent is to evaluate each RFP respondent's past performance - including technical performance; timeliness of performance; quality/customer satisfaction; and cost control - to determine whether the RFP respondent consistently delivered quality service in a timely manner in the past. This factor will be evaluated on the basis of relevant past performance information, including performance on contracts of a comparable nature scope and complexity to those in the current solicitation. The past performance information to be evaluated includes 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. The information presented in RFP respondents' Proposals, together with information from any other sources available to the

Government (e.g., Government-controlled Contractor performance databases and references including contractual, technical, and end-user representatives) may be considered.

In the case of an RFP respondent without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) states that the RFP respondent may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The RFP respondent, in this case, shall be rated as "Neutral" - which is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

c. EVALUATION FACTOR 3: PRICE: A price evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 to determine completeness (i.e. all information required by the RFP has been submitted and is accurate) and reasonableness. The Government may also conduct price realism for the purpose of assessing whether an RFP respondent’s unrealistically low price reflects on its understanding of the SOW requirements or the risk inherent in the RFP respondent’s approach. Price Proposals found to be unrealistically low (an indication of “buy

– in”) will be ineligible for award. The evaluated price will be used in the tradeoff analysis between price and technical factors to determine best value. Discounts are encouraged. All price numbers must be rounded up, NO CENTS.

Award Basis: Proposal will be evaluated on the following factors: Technical (i.e. Technical

Experience and Technical Knowledge), Relevant Past Performance, and Price. Within the

Technical Factor, Technical Subfactors 1 and 2 are approximately equal. Award will be made, using the tradeoff process, to the contractor whose Proposal represents the best value to the

Government. The non-price factors (Technical and Past Performance) when combined are significantly more important than price. However, as technical merit of the proposals becomes more equal, price may become a determining factor.

Table 1. Technical Ratings: Technical factor and sub-factors shall be evaluated using the following adjectival ratings:

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The Proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

Table 2. Past Performance Confidence Assessments: Past Performance factor shall be evaluated using the following adjectival ratings:

Rating Description

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

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the RFP respondent’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the

RFP respondent will successfully perform the required effort.

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

No Confidence Based on the RFP respondent’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the RFP respondent will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the RFP respondent’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Best Value Award Determination

The Government will award a purchase order to the RFP respondent whose proposal conforms to the SOW requirements and is determined, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the RFP respondent who gives

USTDA the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed the requirements affordably.

This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced RFP respondent, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Contracting Officer reasonably determines that the technical superiority of the higher priced RFP respondent merits the additional price.

The Government may award based on initial proposals received, without further discussions.

Accordingly, each RFP respondent should submit their proposal to the Government using the most favorable terms from a technical and price standpoint. Pursuant to FAR Part 15.306(c), if discussions are held, the Contracting Officer shall establish a competitive range of the most highly rated proposals. If the number of most highly rated proposals exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range.

Only one award will result from this RFP. Proposals that do not address all requirements presented in the SOW may not be considered for award.

//Signed//

GARTH A. HIBBERT

USTDA Contracting Officer

Enclosures:

1. Regional MENA Smart Cities Infrastructure DM Statement of Work

2. Past Performance Questionnaire

3. Standard Form 1449