Section L and M.pdf

Section L – Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters

1. PROGRAM STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVE

The Government intends to award one (1) Painting Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for Dyess AFB, Texas. This contract award will be made to a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business contractor. Past Performance Tradeoff will be utilized. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), Past performance and technical factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price:

1) All proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, either initially or as a result of discussions.

2) Proposals deemed acceptable will be evaluated on past performance. Past Performance will be rated on a Confidence Assessment Rating Scale ranging from Substantial, Satisfactory, Neutral, Limited, and No Confidence IAW Past performance Relevancy Rating Table.

3) The technically acceptable offerors proposals shall be evaluated as fair and reasonable, based on competition or other technique deemed appropriate IAW FAR 15.404-1. Price Analysis will be utilized.

*Overall understanding of submittal review, construction management, and closeout processes and logical measures to ensure the successful execution of task orders*

2. GENERAL INFORMATION

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

1. Requirements of the RFP (CLINS and Fill Ins) and government standards and regulations pertaining to and listed in the Attached statements of Work.

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

3. Proposal Page Limitation. Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth in this Section L will not be read or evaluated and will be removed from the proposal. Table of contents, tabs, and glossaries do not count as part of the page limitations.

4. Electronic copies are to contain identical content as the hard copies. When discrepancies exist between the written offers and the electronic format, the electronic offer will take precedence in all cases.

5. Format for proposal shall be as follows:

i. The proposals will be 8 1/2" x 11" paper except for foldouts used for charts, tables, or diagrams, which may not exceed 11" x 17". Fold out pages shall fold entirely within the volume and count as a single page.

ii. A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information.

iii. Typing shall be Times New Roman font and not be less than 12 pitch. Pages shall be single-spaced with 1.5 line spacing.

iv. Use at least 1-inch margins on the top and bottom and 3 /4-inch side margins.

v. Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are not desired or required.

vi. Each volume shall be separately bound and include a cover sheet with the following information: volume number, title, copy number, solicitation number, and offeror's name.

3. PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

A. Intro:

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 three

(3) separate volumes including the following Factors: Volume I - Subfactor 1: Seed Project Subfactor 2: Bonding Capability Subfactor 3: Quality Control Plan Volume II - Past Performance Information, and Volume III - Price Proposal.

B. Cost or Pricing Data:

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 this determination, and if in the contracting officer's opinion adequate price competition exists, no additional data 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 other than certified cost or pricing data to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price.

C. Specific Instructions:

Volume I - Technical -Limited to no more than 25 pages excluding safety and quality control plans.

Subfactor 1: Seed Project: The information provided for the "step by step" technical approach/Scope of Work in reference to the Task Order (TO) will be evaluated to ensure proposal accuracy and capability to perform task orders. Proposals will be evaluated to determine if all items applicable to the offeror's technical approach were included. The following is a non-all-inclusive list of examples of such items: Scope of work clearly addressing the task order, cover sheet, site plan, notes, material submittal register, or project information included on documents, these are examples and is not all-inclusive.

Subfactor 2: Bonding Capability: Evidence of bonding capacity must be provided from an acceptable surety in accordance with FAR 28.202, Acceptability of Corporate Sureties. Evidence must show offeror has sufficient bonding capability to meet the maximum task order amount of $1,000,000.

Subfactor 3: Quality Control Plan: At a minimum, an acceptable Quality Control Plan must provide a detailed narrative to include any graphic representations of the offeror's plan to ensure successful execution of the Painting IDIQ and multiple simultaneous task orders.

The offeror's proposal shall clearly convey the following:

1. Clear processes for the logical, effective, and expedient documentation and resolution of quality problems.

2. Logical measures to identify poor performing subcontractors, to include appropriate corrective action, management tools, methods, and documentation.

3. Identify key quality control personnel (with overlapping duties and responsibilities) and the extent of their authority.

4. Methods and frequency of inspection for ongoing projects; and

5. Methods the offeror will utilize to update the government on project status and how interface with government inspectors will be accomplished (status updates shall be a minimum of weekly).

6. Methods of obtaining materials that meet the requirements of the contract; including but not limited to standard building materials.

Volume II - Past Performance Information - Limited to a total of 5 contracts with a minimum of 3 contracts, no more than 5 pages per contract. Only references from relevant past efforts/contracts are desired.

i. Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed within 5 calendar years of the solicitation issue date: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for relevant past efforts/contracts. 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.

ii. Performance Surveys: 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 any other sources of information available to the Government to assess past performance. 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 five (5) calendar years of the solicitation issue date.

Relevant contracts are defined as meeting the following criteria:

1. Having at a minimum, one past performance project included with a value between $100,000.00 and $300,000.00.

2. Contractors must have interior painting, exterior painting, and road stripping experience and

3. Other projects that were managed concurrently with other projects meeting above.

The evaluation of past performance information may 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:

(1) Company/Division name

(2) Product/Service

(3) Contracting Agency/Customer

(4) Contract Number

(5) Contract Dollar Value

(6) Period of Performance

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

(8) Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

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

*If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past 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 relevant contracts. *

iii. Contractor 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.

Volume III - Price – Submit one (1) electronic copy of entire proposal.

Offeror shall submit pricing information to support the completeness and reasonableness of their proposed prices for all CLINs. The pricing information submitted should fully support Attachment 1) Dyess AFB Painting IDIQ - SOW requirements for each major functional element specified in the specifications. Information shall be segregated by the performance periods, and the total price for each CLIN as specified in the solicitation. Information shall also show the consolidated total price for performance and any pertinent organizational information deemed appropriate to disclose to the Government.

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

1. SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award: This is a Past Performance Trade Off conducted IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at http://acquisition.gov. Technical capability and past performance history, when combined, will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations, IAW FAR 15.101(b)(2). A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation). While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The Government reserves the right to evaluate multiple offerors, and award a contract based upon criteria listed in Sections L and M of this solicitation, determined to be in the Government's best interest. The award will be based on a consideration of one or more of the following items: available funding, the need to sustain adequate competition, and the availability of an awardable proposal, consistent with Trade-off procedures outlined in this solicitation, following completion of an integrated assessment of the proposals received.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award a single firm-fixed-price contract for the Dyess Painting Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ). This Painting IDIQ will fall under NAICS 238320 - Painting and Wall Covering Contractors. The period of performance is one (1) base period and four (4) 1-year option periods, for a 5-year total ordering period. The total duration of contractual coverage shall not exceed five (5) years and six (6) months. It is anticipated that the options will be exercised.

1.3 Discussions: The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or opportunity for proposal revisions. If during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the selection decision. Offerors may be required to respond with their FPR within 24 hours. If the offeror's proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to re-evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror's proposal will be determined unacceptable or the price is no longer fair and reasonable, the offeror may be ineligible for award. If the Government elects to open discussions, the competitive range may or may not include proposals rated as "Unacceptable" at the sole discretion of the Government. A competitive range, if required, may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

1.4 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation will result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

1.5 Proposal Evaluation Approach:

1.5.1. Step 1: Review all timely proposals for completeness and eligibility.

1.5.2. Step 2: Evaluate all eligible proposals for technical acceptability.

1.5.3. Step 3: Evaluate all technically acceptable proposals for past performance.

1.5.4. Step 4: Evaluate all technically acceptable proposals pricing to determine realistic, fair, and reasonable.

1.5.5 Step 5: At this time, proposals rated technically acceptable, with past performance confidence assessment ratings of substantial, satisfactory, or unknown (neutral), and pricing determined to be fair and reasonable based on competition will be ranked based on an integrated assessment. In accordance with FAR15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

Responsibility: In addition to the evaluation factors noted above, the offeror must be determined responsible according to the standards in FAR Subpart 9.1 - Responsible Prospective Contractors

2. Evaluation Factors

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors: The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

2.1.1 Factor 1: Technical

2.1.1.1 Subfactor 1: Seed Project

2.1.1.2 Subfactor 2: Bonding Capacity

2.1.1.3 Subfactor 3: Quality Control Plan

2.1.2 Factor 2: Past Performance

2.1.3 Factor 3: Price

Volume I

2.2 Technical Factor: The Government's technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described in the Technical Ratings table below for each subfactor. An overall technical rating will not be assigned. Any subfactor evaluated as "Unacceptable" will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, will not receive award. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

Technical Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.1 Sub-Factor 1 – Seed Project

2.2.1.1 Description: The seed task order will be used to determine technical acceptability for awarding the painting contract. The scope of the seed task order is intended to be a representative sample of the work to be performed under the basic Painting IDIQ. The project is to Renovate Bldg 7101 on Dyess AFB. Identify the major milestones that make-up the seed project's critical path providing a detailed approach from requirements documents to construction completion within the period of performance of 21 days. The milestones will be identified as preliminary dates and defined in terms of the number of calendar days from one milestone to the next. Identify the significant risks that may hinder progression along the critical path. The plan shall provide a detailed approach for cradle to grave completion of the seed project. The narrative shall describe the technical approach for meeting each element of the requirement. The narrative shall identify how work will transition from one area to the next, and the customer-oriented approach for ensuring customer expectations and goals are met, or exceeded, throughout construction phases.

2.2.1.2 The offeror must meet all identified technical criteria stated below:

(i) Work Performance Plan - Provide a comprehensive Work Performance Plan (to include, but not limited to: material submittals, testing, policies, procedures, records, forms, surge management, and processes to be used).

(ii) The names, qualifications (in resume format), duties, responsibilities, and authorities of proposed on-site personnel, including subcontractors. Any replacements must have similar qualifications in dealing with projects of similar size and scope. The contractor shall send replacement personnel(s) name(s) and qualification(s) (in resume format) to the Contracting Officer via the submittal process for approval by the government, prior to assigning replacement personnel to any aspect of the project.

(iii) The offeror provides an equipment list to accomplish the work, including a thorough explanation of all equipment proposed to perform the work.

(iv) The offeror successfully demonstrates a realistic schedule that demonstrates an approach and understanding of the required activities to execute the project. The schedule successfully defines the project's critical path, provides a description of all work, and sequencing activities required to complete each phase within 21 calendar days. This will be demonstrated by including a Gantt chart showing all activities and the critical path.

2.2.2 Sub-Factor 2 - Bonding Capacity

2.2.2.1 Offeror must provide evidence it is able to obtain the maximum single award/task order performance and payment bonding capacity of $600K and a minimum multiple project aggregate bonding capacity of $1M. At a minimum, the proposed approach shall thoroughly substantiate all the following:

2.2.2.2 The offeror must submit bonding capacity documents that meet the aggregate and project amounts, backed by a bonding surety with a best company rating of 'A'. The document must also include the surety company's name, address, phone number, and points of contact.

2.2.3 Sub-Factor 3 - Quality Control Plan

2.2.3.1 Offeror shall provide a draft Quality Control Plan (QCP). The plan shall identify personnel, procedures, control, instructions, test, records, and forms to be used. The plan shall describe the offeror's approach to detection and resolution of problems with the actual work insufficient detail to evaluate the frequency and quality of Contractor inspections and how progress shall be measured. After contract award a finalized, the formal detailed Quality Control Plan shall be required from the apparent awardee no later than twenty (20) calendar days after the award of the contract for approval IAW the Statement of Objectives.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror's proposal provides the following:

(i) A description of the contractor's quality control processes and procedures, including a chart showing lines of authority. The QCP Manager shall report to the project manager or someone higher in the organization. The project manager in this context shall mean the individual with responsibility for the overall management of the project including quality and production.

VOLUME II

2.3 Past Performance: The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

2.3.1 Ratings.

Each offeror will receive a single integrated performance confidence assessment. This integration may include the recent and relevant present/past performance of the Prime offeror and Joint Ventures. An offeror's overall confidence assessment will be impacted by past performance findings to include the amount and type of work proposed to be performed by each entity of the offeror's team. More recent performance or more relevant past performance may have greater impact on the performance confidence assessment.

Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Painting IDIQ, the resulting performance confidence assessment is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of offeror performance and the resulting confidence level for work under this requirement. Each offeror will receive one of the performance confidence ratings as described below in Table 5 - Performance Confidence Assessments, listed in the table below.

Performance Confidence

Assessments Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

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

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

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 Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

2.3.2 The Government will consider and evaluate offeror's past performance information, to include the Relevant Contracts, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The Government will assess if past performance is deemed recent and relevant for the requirements of this RFP. Recent and Relevant is defined in the subparagraph below:

2.3.3 Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.4 Relevancy: Submit up to five (5) most recent contracts that are considered most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. Recent past performance is defined as any relevant work completed within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Also, include information up to three (3) recent contracts performed by each of your teaming partners, Joint Ventures, and/or significant subcontractors that you consider most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort. Past Performance information on recent contracts performed by teaming partners and significant subcontractors may be included however the prime contractor's past performance will be weighted as significantly more important than that of subcontractors. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance.

Offerors must also demonstrate the ability to successfully complete three or more active contracts simultaneously. Examples include, but are not limited to, Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER), Job Order Contracts (JOC), Multiple Award Construction Contracts (MACC), Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC), or simply evidence of simultaneous work completed on schedule. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining recency and relevance, see Section M of the solicitation, Performance Confidence Assessment. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition 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 involved 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 requires.

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

Note: 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 solicitation.

2.3.5 Assigning Confidence Rating. As a result of the relevancy of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating.

Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical factors and price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

2.3.6 Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and, in the format specified in Section L. 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 will not constitute discussions and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

Note: A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. Only a proposal deemed technically acceptable, pricing determined to be fair and reasonable, and a past performance assessment rating of substantial confidence will be considered for award.

Volume III

2.4 Price Factor: Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable may not be considered for award.

2.4.1 The Government will evaluate the proposed price for the price list, from the completed SF1442 and Attachment 02-Pricing Sheet included in Section J within the solicitation to determine which offerors' total price represents the best value to the Government. The Contracting Officer will use price competition and/or the Government's estimate to determine whether the offeror's pricing is fair and reasonable in addition to other methods required in FAR 15.404.

2.4.2 The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated as follows: TEP= Base Period + Option Period 1 + Option Period 2 + Option Period 3 + Option Period 4 + Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217-8 per the completed pricing section of the SF1442 of this solicitation. Offerors shall not submit separate pricing or CLINS for Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217-8. The Government will utilize one-half of the total price for option year four to account for FAR Clause 52.217-8 (Option to Extend Services). This will be added to the offeror's prices of the base and all options years to become the overall price.

2.4.2.1. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.4.3 Reasonableness - Price reasonableness will be determined based on the offeror's total evaluated price, including all option periods. For a price to be reasonable, it shall represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. The pricing proposal will be evaluated for completeness on each CLIN for the ID/IQ and the task order. The Government will evaluate proposed prices to determine whether prices are consistent with the CLINS required for the work to be performed and reflect a clear understanding of the requirements.