RFQ.pdf

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR QUOTE (RFQ) 693JJ420Q000008 – Uniform Program for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Office of Field Operations

(MC-F).

This is a combined synopsis solicitation for commercial items in accordance with FAR Part 12.6 - Streamlined Procedures for Evaluation and Solicitation for Commercial Items.

The Government intends to award one (1) Firm Fixed Price Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) to a single Offeror for a five (5) year period of performance and ordering periods.

This effort will be awarded as a BPA and set-aside for Women Owned Small Business concerns. Prospective Offerors that respond to this Request for Quote must not include “Open Market” or “Incidental Items”. Also, prospective Offerors must not include in a submission to this RFQ services that are not specifically listed as contract line items in its Contract. The BPA award will consist of incorporated Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses and Transportation Acquisition Regulation (TAR) clauses that will be supplemental to the Offeror’s contract. The NAICS for this action is 424320.

VOLUME I – TECHNICAL QUOTE:

Offerors shall not include any pricing information in the technical quote. The content of the “Technical Response” shall include the following two (2) sections:

CRITERIA 1: Technical Capability and Approach:

Each Offeror shall provide a complete description of their technical capability and approach in a format and content applicable to the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements. Failure to provide any information may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration. Technical capability and approach shall set forth in the most comprehensive manner the Offeror’s technical understanding and approach to performing all of the specified requirements as delineated in the Scope of Work of the attached PWS. The technical capability and approach shall present a clear, concise description of how the Offeror plans to accomplish the technical efforts defined in the PWS. In total, the Offeror must describe the overall technical capability and approach for the work described in the PWS to include each unique tasking or activities described therein. The Offeror’s quote should also describe how the work will be performed with respect to incorporating subject matter expertise for technical methodologies, processes and procedures. The Offeror must demonstrate a technical understanding of the requirement and should not simply restate the Performance Work Statement requirements.

CRITERIA 2: Past Performance:

The Offeror shall provide a complete description of their past performance/experience.

Failure to provide any information may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration therefore, the Offeror shall address the Past Performance/Experience. The Offeror’s quote will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it demonstrates performance and experience at a level similar in size, scope and complexity and ensures an appropriate level of confidence that the requirements as described in the Performance Work Statement.

The Offeror’s quote shall include a demonstrated record, within the past five (5) years as confirmed by references, of successful past performance, including quality of services, compliance with PWS requirements, contract management, and customer satisfaction.

Past performance information provided shall be for support services of similar scope, complexity, size, and financial impact to client. The Offeror shall identify three (3) of its most recent contracts, (Federal, State, local government, and/or private), providing similar type of support services. If there is no relevant Past performance, Offerors will receive a “neutral” rating. For each reference identify the following information:

A. Name and address of the company/agency B. Points of contact C. Telephone numbers and email addresses D. Contract type and number E. Identify if you were Prime or Subcontractor F. Contract Value G. Original Value H. Current Value I. Explanation of Cost Growth J. Period of Performance K. Project Start Date L. Original Completion Date M. Explanation of any Delays N. Type of work performed O. Problems encountered and their resolutions P. Any subOfferors or partnerships

VOLUME II – PRICE QUOTE:

Each Offeror shall submit a “Price Quote” separate from the “Technical Response.” The Price Quote shall include the following:

a.) The Offeror shall submit pricing for the total performance period (inclusive of Option Periods). The quote must specifically include the total level of effort for the Performance Work Statement requirements identified in this Request for Quote. Offeror’s quotes that do not include the total level of effort for this PWS’s requirements will be considered non-responsive and non-compliant with the

Request for Quote instructions. If the Offeror has a GSA Schedule Contract for this service, please indicate with GSA Contract Number.

Moreover, Offerors are encouraged to propose price discounts from their established GSA Schedule labor rates, if applicable. If price discounts are offered, please identify the percentage off any price discount and/or price reduction offered. Offerors who do not have a GSA contract will not be penalized, as this is not a GSA procurement.

b.) ODCs will be a part of this effort. This line item is separate from Labor Cost and is already filled in as a Not-to-Exceed estimate.

c.) The Offeror’s proposed price shall illustrate how the Offeror understands the Performance Work Statement requirements by substantiating the validity of the Offeror’s technical approach to performing the PWS requirements. Therefore, any limitations and/or assumptions in the price quote shall be included by the Offeror.

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR AWARD & BASIS FOR AWARD

GENERAL INFORMATION:

The Government intends to award a single BPA to one (1) Offeror whose quote represents the best value. Best value is defined in FAR Part 2, as the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. The Government will conduct the best value analysis using evaluation criteria stated herein. In performing its best value analysis, the Government will compare any relevant differences among the evaluated quotes to determine which quote offers the greatest overall best value. This effort will include comparing strengths, and weaknesses associated with each offer.

When conducting the evaluation, the Government may use data included by Offerors in their quote, as well as other appropriate data. Each Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the information provided is thorough, accurate, and complete.

The Government intends to evaluate the quote and award a single BPA without discussions.

Therefore, the Offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial quote, as received, without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range and then hold discussions should it be construed as being in the best interest of the government. Nonetheless, each Offeror should submit its best offer, as the opportunity to submit a revised quote is not anticipated.

BASIS FOR AWARD:

The Government will award a single FFP BPA to one (1) Offeror whose quote offers an integrated approach for meeting the requirements of the Performance Work Statement and is evaluated as the best overall offer for the Government, price and other non-price criteria considered. This evaluation may result in an award to a single higher-priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation criteria and represents the best value to the Government. The determination of best value will be based on an evaluation of the following criteria:

Criteria 1 – Technical Capability and Approach (Non-Price) Criteria 2 – Past Performance/Experience (Non-Price) Criteria 3 – Price

Cost will be considered in making a best value determination; however, it is not a weighted criteria. When combined, the non-priced criteria are significantly more important than price.

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

Offerors submitted in response to this Request for Quote will be evaluated based the following criteria. Technical Capability will be rated on the following:

TECHNICAL CAPABILITY AND APPROACH (FACTOR 1)

Technical Capability will be adjectivally rated based on an integrated assessment of the following sub-factors: Technical Approach. The sub factors are considered to be of equal weight. Within the Plan sub-factors, are of equal weight. The adjectival ratings are:

Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, and Unacceptable.

(1) Technical Approach Technical Approach will be evaluated based on the degree to which the offeror’s technical approach satisfies all the requirements in the Solicitation and the PWS and demonstrate a clear understanding of these technical requirements. This understanding includes the ability of the offeror to identify potential problem areas and propose technical and management solutions. The evaluation of technical approach also includes the degree to which the offeror’s approach is logical, feasible, technically valid and achievable. Unique concepts, features, and other approaches offered in a proposal may be considered in terms of the degree to which risks are identified, minimized and realize potential benefits to the Government.

Under Technical Approach, pre-production samples will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis only against the requirements provided for each item in the specifications attached.

(2) Plans

(a) Program Management Plan – The program management plan will be evaluated for the degree to which the offeror devotes the necessary resources and controls to the proposed work and the extent to which it includes valid, continuous improvement performance metrics and advantageous warranty periods;

comprehensive management and delivery of uniforms and services; contingency planning; appropriate personnel qualifications of proposed Program Manager.

(b) Security Plan –The Security Plan as described in the PWS will be evaluated for how well physical and personal security will protect the Government and the whether or not there are risks in the methodology and process used by which uniforms will be accounted for, secured and tracked to make sure they are not lost, stolen or otherwise, unaccounted for.

(c) Purchasing Plan –The Purchasing Plan as described in the PWS will be evaluated for how efficiently the offeror’ business systems, such as accounting, property control, procurement control, and the performance of work, account for costs.

(d) Manufacturing/Acquisition Plan – The Manufacturing/Acquisition Plan will be evaluated for the degree to which the conduct and reporting of first article testing uses best commercial practices and met testing and approval by the government.

The Plan will be evaluated for the ability of manufacturing resources, purchase and acquisition of resources and production facilities used for this contract to meet contract requirements and provide for quality assurance. Included will be how the process expediently and efficiently handles backorders and how well the proposed production schedule and the process for which substitutions for FMCSA Uniform Specifications are accomplished.

(e) Fitting Plan – The Government will evaluate the Offerors plan for ensuring that uniforms fit and how well the plan details and accurate, fitting process with process for refitting and ensuring that ill-fitting uniforms are corrected or replaced.

(f) Distribution/Delivery Plan – The Government will evaluate (1) how well the plan provides for ongoing uniform replenishment and replacement, (2) how well it addresses methods, timeframes, and contingency planning for delivery to initial, subsequent hires, and backorders and (3) how distribution will be accomplished to ensure fit and deliver in not more than 5 calendar days.

(3) Product Identification – will be evaluated on a ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ basis. The following represents the criteria for determining ‘pass’ or ‘fail’:

(a) Meets fabric specifications

(b) Meets fabric color specifications

(c) Meets size specifications

Products must be clearly identified and manufacturer specification sheets must be provided. If products meet the above criteria, a ‘pass’ rating will be granted. If not met, a ‘fail’ rating will be granted.

The three (3) subfactors beneath Technical Capability will be weighted with equal merit, each consisting of 33% of the total.

TECHNICAL CAPABILITY EVALUATION GUIDELINES:

(a) Subjective adjectival ratings will be assigned. The Technical Evaluation Plan (TEP) shall record key strengths/strengths key weaknesses/weaknesses, and reference the appropriate area of the offeror’s proposal and the corresponding requirements of the RFQ. An adjectival rating will be documented for each factor.

(b)The purpose of the evaluation is to determine how well the offerors have responded to the RFQ requirements by determining the depth of their technical capabilities. The technical subfactors listed above are intended to best illustrate an offeror’s capabilities.

The rating on each factor will be compiled to determine an overall rating for the technical proposal.

(c) The evaluators must evaluate each proposal on the basis of what is being offered.

Evaluators are cautioned to distinguish clearly between what is being offered and what is extraneous matter.

(d) After the evaluation is complete, including any clarifications made with offerors, the TEP will prepare a narrative evaluation to accompany the adjectival rating of each proposal. The narrative will set forth the key strengths/strengths and key weaknesses/weaknesses of the proposals and will fully support the adjectival ratings assigned. To aid in determining if discussions are needed, a summary chart will be prepared depicting each offeror’s technical ranking by factor.

STANDARD OF TECHNICAL CAPABILITY EVALUATION

Outstanding:

The proposal for the factor (or sub-factor) is comprehensive, in depth, with clear responses, and uniformly outstanding in quality with no deficiencies. Consistently high quality performance can be expected. The offeror has convincingly demonstrated that the RFQ’s requirement have been analyzed, evaluated, and synthesized into a solution when implemented, should result in effective, efficient, performance under the contract.

Further, the proposal has clearly defined key strengths and strengths exhibiting the highest quality of equipment and services to be delivered under the contract. Overall, the evaluator is confident there is little risk of failure and the evaluator is confident in the Offerors’ abilities to successfully perform and exceed the solicitation requirements.

Good:

The proposal for the factor (or sub-factor) meets all minimum requirements for the RFQ, with acceptable solutions and no key deficiencies. There are strengths that prove beneficial. Any weaknesses are easily corrected and of a nature that should not seriously affect the Offeror’s performance and the RFQ’s requirements should be fulfilled.

Overall, the evaluator is confident in the Offeror’s abilities to successfully perform the contract.

Acceptable:

The offeror reflects an adequate understanding of the requirements of the RFQ, but some are general or unnecessary. The technical approach contains weaknesses and or significant weaknesses, but still allows the Offeror to meet the solicitation requirements.

There may be deficiencies that are correctible through discussion but overall the evaluator believes the Offeror’s abilities meet the minimum solicitation requirements with marginal risk to the Government.

Unacceptable:

The proposal for the factor (or sub-factor) does not meet the minimum requirements of the RFQ. It contains one or more key weaknesses and weaknesses that compromise the offerors ability to complete the solicitation requirements. The offeror’s interpretation of the RFQ’s requirement is so superficial, incomplete, vague, incompatible, incomprehensible, or incorrect as to be unsatisfactory, or the quality of the equipment or services or both to be delivered will likely be of such a low level that satisfactory performance is seriously jeopardized or placed completely or unacceptably at risk.

Overall the offeror’s proposal fails to include enough information to determine that the acceptability requirements have been met.

PAST PERFORMANCE & EXPERIENCE (FACTOR 2)

Past performance will be adjectivally rated based on an integrated assessment of the following sub-factors: historical experience and customer satisfaction. The sub factors are considered to be of equal weight. The adjectival ratings are: Outstanding, Acceptable, Neutral and Unsatisfactory. The past performance evaluation will examine how the offeror’s past and present performance validates expected performance and customer satisfaction for FMCSA. The offeror’s past performance must show no serious performance failures within the last 3 years that would increase the risk of failure in performance on this contract. The Government reserves the right to make inquiries as to the prospective offeror’s past performance on any existing or previous contracts, regardless of whether or not they are included in the proposal submission. The evaluation of past performance will also consider how well the offeror has complied with technical requirements and performance standards, how well the offeror has met schedules and how well the offeror has met cost performance, including whether or not there have been cost overruns or savings.

In submitting the three (3) references, the offeror may include information from predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subOfferors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will receive a Neutral rating.

PAST PERFORMANCE STANDARD OF EVALUATION

Greater value will be given to experience which is most similar and clearly demonstrates exceptional performance with a high level of customer satisfaction.

Outstanding:

There were no quality problems and the Offeror had an excellent history of contract performance on contracts of a similar size and scope. The Offeror’s past performance record indicates that they have a history of developing and delivering high quality services/products in the areas described in the RFQ.

Acceptable:

The offeror’s past performance record indicates that they have a history of developing and delivering quality services/products in the areas described in the RFQ.

Neutral:

The offeror’s past performance record is not extensive in the areas of capabilities desired in the RFQ or the offeror does not have a past record of performing similar requirements.

Unacceptable:

The offeror’s past performance record does not demonstrate successful delivery of services or supplies as outlined in the solicitation

PRICE (FACTOR 3)

EVALUATED PRICE

The Government may use cost/price analysis to evaluate the cost estimates or prices, not only to determine whether or not they are reasonable, but also to determine understanding of the work and ability to perform the contract. The price proposal should represent the Offeror’s response to the requirements in the solicitation and the estimated quantities of each item. The evaluated price for all ordering period years will be evaluated for:

(a) Price Realism – Compatibility of the technical approach.

(b) Price Reasonableness – Acceptability of the firm fixed prices for each item.

The Government will evaluate offeror’s price proposals and potential six-month option period. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Offerors are advised that that when technical proposals become more equal, price will become more important.

DECLINING TO SUBMIT A QUOTE:

In the event that the Offeror declines to submit a quote, please indicate via email to at Mr.

Steve Fuller at Steve.Fuller@dot.gov that the Offeror will not be submitting a quote and any reason(s) why the quote will not be submitted within one (1) business day after receipt of this RFQ.

QUESTIONS DEADLINE:

All Offeror questions related to this Request for Quote shall be submitted to Contract Specialist, Mr. Steve Fuller, Steve.Fuller@dot.gov, via email not later than 12:00 PM ET on March 18, 2020.

QUOTE DEADLINE:

All Offeror Quotes must be submitted and received not later than 12:00 PM ET on March 27, 2020. Offerors shall submit one (1) original quote in an electronic version of both volumes in word format and the pricing tables. Offerors must submit all quotes via email.

In closing, all inquiries regarding this Request for Quote must be made directly to the Contract Specialist, Mr. Steve Fuller. At no time during the solicitation period should a prospective Offeror contact any individual within the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to seek assistance with a question and/or concern regarding this Request for Quote. Thank you in advance for your strict adherence to this instruction.

***PLEASE NOTE: Design and patch specifications are subject to change, but shall not exceed the current number.

mailto:Steve.Fuller@dot.gov mailto:Steve.Fuller@dot.gov