Section L M Proposal Instructions and Evaluation Criteria- Canine Center Technician.pdf

SECTION L

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

Proposals -

The preferred method for proposals to be submitted in response to this solicitation is via e-mail to Stacy.parran@atf.gov.

**Due to the COVID-19 Mandatory, 100% telework directive, all proposals must be emailed to the above address by solicitation closing.**

All offers, whether received by U.S. mail or email, must be postmarked and received no later than the closing date specified in Block 8 of the SF 1449. Offers received after the closing date will be rejected.

Except as specifically provided in an order, all postage and fees related to the submission of information, including but not limited to forms, reports, supporting, supporting documentation, etc. shall be paid by the Contractor. The Government shall not be responsible for costs associated with proposal preparation.

52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB

1998)

This solicitation incorporates one or more provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer (CO) will make the full text available. Be cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the Offeror and submitted with its proposal. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the Offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its proposal. Also, the full text of a provision may be accessed electronically at these addresses:

http://www.arnet.gov/far

(a) The Government may award without discussions with the offeror; therefore, the offeror is cautioned to examine the solicitation in its entirety and to ensure that its proposal is complete, containing all necessary information/all required documentation, in all respects. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and to permit the offeror, the opportunity to revise its proposal(s).

(b) The Offeror shall submit an electronically signed and dated offer, by 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time (EST) on Friday, April 30, 2021 to Stacy.parran@ATF.gov. ALL VENDOR QUESTIONS ARE DUE BY April 16, 2021, 05:00PM EST. NO QUESTIONS WILL BE

ADDRESSED AFTER THIS DATE.

http://www.arnet.gov/far

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

(a) To be considered for selection, the Offeror must submit a complete response to this Request for Proposal (RFP) using the sequence and format provided herein. All pages must be identified with the Offeror’s name and Solicitation number.

(b) For the electronic submission, the offer/proposal shall be in uncompressed files submitted via email or as attachment.

(c) The electronic version of the text shall be in Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat Portable Data Format (PDF).

(d) Information shall be confined to the appropriate section to facilitate independent evaluation. The technical proposal should be clear and concise, logically assembled and indexed and cross-indexed to applicable parts of the RFP as appropriate. Pages over the maximum-page limitation for any section will be excluded from evaluation. The page limits shall include any diagrams, figures, tables, or reference material.

2. FORMAT

(a) Submissions. Submissions shall be on 8 ½” x 11” (with no fold-outs) white paper and printed only on one side of the paper. The text shall have 1” margins on all sides, be single-spaced; font color black; and font size 12. Illustrations (e.g., graphics figures, graphs, and tables) shall be in portrait format with font colors other than black allowable and font sizes 12, 10, and 9 are considered acceptable. The Offeror’s company name (no logos), the date, solicitation number, section shall be included on each page of the proposal (may be included in a header/footer). All pages of the proposal/offer shall be numbered, using a uniform-paragraph-numbering system. Page numbers, headers and footers may be outside the page margins, and are not bound by the font, color and point-size requirement. Information not contained within the above limitations will not be evaluated.

(b) The Offeror shall present all information relevant to each factor in the appropriate section. The Offeror shall insert its company’s name in the filename. At the end of each section, the Offeror may include any “Exceptions” that they take with the requirements, constraints, and terms and conditions. Any exceptions taken shall clearly identify the RFP Section, paragraph, and requirement/objective, constraint, or terms and conditions to which exception is being made and include appropriate supporting rationale for each exception. The Government is not obligated to accept such exceptions to the RFP, and these may render the Offeror’s proposal unacceptable.

(c) Requirements

Section

Section/Tab Title

Page Limits

I

Introduction (Table of Contents, Executive-Level Summary, Corporate Qualifications), ORCA Certification or other Certifications and Representations

II

Technical Approach Section 3.2.

The contractor shall describe its technical approach for achieving the Statement of Work in Section C.

III

Key Personnel Section 3.3 The Contractor shall describe the Key Personnel including experience and resume which demonstrates the individual’s ability to execute the SOW requirements.

IV

Past Performance

3 Pages per Reference

V

Price

Section 2 of Solicitation

3. CONTENT

All sections listed below MUST be broken out clearly within the contractor’s proposal, if not, Proposals will be considered Nonresponsive.

3.1 Section I Introduction – Offers shall contain the following information.

3.1.1 Introduction & Table of contents for easy reference.

3.1.2 Executive-Level Summary. Provide a letter formally transmitting the offer/quote. Identify the name, address, e-mail address, telephone and facsimile transmission number of the person(s) whom has the contractual authority and can be contacted concerning any questions about this offer/ proposal. Also, include the following as attachments to the letter:

(a) A document containing the following information:

Name, address, telephone number, facsimile number, e-mail address, and cage code of the contractor and of any corporate affiliate at which work is to be performed.

The Offeror shall demonstrate its technical capability in performing tasks similar to those identified in the Statement of Work (SOW)

3.1.3 Section I - ORCA Certification in accordance with FAR Part 52.212-3. This tab shall contain a completed copy of your company’s ORCA Certification or proper DUNS Number that will allow the government to download your ORCA information.

3.1.4 Section I - Exceptions/Alternatives (Terms and Conditions).

(a) Offerors are cautioned that they take exception to any Terms and Conditions of the solicitation at their own risk. The Government may, at its option, reject an offer/quote which contains any such exceptions.

(b) Nonetheless, any exception taken by the Offeror, at its own risk, shall be identified in this tab. The Offeror shall clearly identify the paragraph and term or condition to which the exception is being made and include appropriate rationale for any such exception.

(c) Suggested, optional wording changes (to include clarifications and addenda) to any terms and conditions of the solicitation shall be identified in this part. The Government may at its option accept or reject any such changes. If accepted, it may be necessary to amend the solicitation and to discuss the changes with other Offerors.

(d) If no exceptions are taken, the Offeror shall include the following statement in this part of the proposal: “[Name of Offeror] takes no exception to any terms and conditions of Solicitation No.

15A00021R00000049.

3.1.5 Section I Contractor must show proof that they are registered under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) number 541940 in Systems Award Management (SAM)

3.1.6. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Any contractor having a conflict of interest as defined under FAR Part 9.5 must identify the conflict as soon as it is known and provide a recommended mitigation plan. Mitigation plans are required whenever a competing contractor has had unequal access to non-public information regarding this requirement and/or competition, or has assisted the Government in defining the requirements or evaluation criteria.

3.2 Section II Criteria for Technical Approach as listed in the Statement of Work.

Offers shall contain the following information.

3.2.1 Technical Approach:

The contractor shall describe its approach and the technical approach for achieving the Statement of Work in Section C. The contractor’s technical approach will address how your company will provide the required Canine Technician Services. The response must be clear, concise, specific;

statements that your company, “understands the requirement and will comply” by themselves are not satisfactory. The proposal shall include a detailed description of supplies and or services to be provided which addresses in-depth how the offeror plans to meet the requirement.

3.3 Section III Criteria for Key Personnel as listed in the Statement of Work. Offers shall demonstrate the following.

3.3 Key Personnel/Experience:

The Government will evaluate degree to which the Offeror's proposed key personnel/experience resume demonstrates the individual's ability to execute SOW requirements on the basis of strength of relevant education and training, depth and breadth of relevant experience. Key Personnel/Experience will include Qualifications (Experience, Education and Training) and Approach to Canine Technician Services.

3.4 Section IV Past Performance

The contractor shall provide references for three (3) contracts/orders with the Federal Government and/or commercial customers that demonstrate recent and relevant past performance of similar scope, size and complexity of the services identified in the SOW. Recent is defined as within the last three (3) years. Relevant is defined as work similar in complexity, magnitude, and type of the work described in the SOW.

Contractors are instructed to send requests for references to the referenced party with instructions that they, in turn, should send the information directly to the ATF Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist listed above. The contractor shall provide a detailed summary of the work performed for each past performance reference submitted. ATF reserves the right to interview each reference provided to verify project scope, dollar value and obtain additional past performance information.

Contractors shall provide the following information for each past performance references provided.

(a) Contract/Order number

(b) Title of Program/Project

(c) Scope

(d) Contract Type

(e) Period of Performance

(f) Awarded Dollar Value

(g) Final, or Projected Final, Dollar Value

(h) Original Delivery Schedule

(i) Final, or Projected Final, Delivery Schedule

(j) Organizational name (Government/Commercial Activity), Address, Telephone and Fax numbers, and e-mail address for the technical and contractual points of contact

(k) A three (3) page or less description of the project or contract referenced and the contractor’s rationale as to the relevance of the experience to the prospective work to be performed under this solicitation. Contractors shall detail in each past performance reference whether or not their approach is currently deployed in a production environment. It is incumbent upon the offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided.

The Government may also consider information obtained through other sources to include Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Past performance information will be utilized to determine the quality of the contractor’s past and present performance surveys as it relates to the probability of success of the required effort. In this section the contractor will include demonstrated and relevant corporate experience, including subcontractors and teaming partners, in performing projects requiring the type of services solicited.

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. See FAR 15.305.

Section V Price

The Offeror shall ensure that all information is presented in an organized fashion to allow ATF to understand the cost. The contract resulting from this solicitation shall be a Firm-Fixed Price Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) contract. In order to assess price reasonableness and amount:

The Offeror shall complete pricing under Section 2 for the contract Line Items (CLIN) within the Solicitation.

• The Government anticipates that the offeror will propose on a not to exceed amount consisting of 192 workdays per year, 8 hours per day, 4 days a week, 16 days per year.

• Issuance of this solicitation does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government. This request does not commit the Government to pay for costs incurred in the submission of a proposal or for any other costs incurred prior to the execution of a formal contract unless specifically authorized in writing by the Contracting Officer.

Attention is directed to the fact that a Contracting Officer is the only individual who can legally commit or obligate the Government to the expenditure of public funds should a contract result by reason of a response to this request for proposal.

SECTION M

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

General

(a) The Government is conducting this source selection in accordance with the procedures contained in FAR Part 12, 13, and 13.5.

(b) The Government intends to award a single Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal meets the Government’s requirements and whose technical proposal and price represent the best value to the Government. The Government will conduct the best value analysis using the evaluation factors listed in Section M. In performing its best value analysis, the Government will compare any relevant differences among the evaluated proposals to determine which proposal offers the overall best value. This effort will include comparing the strengths, weaknesses and risks associated with each offer.

(c) The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with the Offerors. Therefore, the initial proposal should contain the Offerors' best terms from a technical and cost/price standpoint.

(d) When conducting the evaluation, the Government may use data included by Offerors in their proposals, as well as data obtained from other sources. Each Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the information provided is thorough, accurate, and complete.

(e) The Offeror must clearly demonstrate that all requirements of the SOLICITATION are met. The Offeror must also address all information requirements of the Solicitation.

(f) The evaluation process will be carried out so as to assess how advantageous the contractor’s proposal is in reference to the technical evaluation factors. One of several stated adjectival ratings will be assigned in order to express judgment on each technical evaluation factor. These technical factor ratings will be assigned to facilitate an overall technical rating for the proposal, which combined with the evaluated price, will be used to determine the proposal deemed to be most advantageous to the Government. The proposal price will be evaluated but no adjectival rating will be applied.

Basis for Award

The Government will award a contract to the responsible Offerors whose proposals are the most advantageous to the Government, price and non-price factors considered. The evaluation of proposals will be based on the following factors, which are listed in descending order of importance: (1) Technical Approach, (2) Key Personnel/Experience (3) Past Performance and (4) Price.

Order of Importance: (1) Technical Approach (2) Key Personnel/Experience and (3) Past Performance are referred to as technical factors. Technical Approach is more important than (2) Key Personnel/Experience and (3) Past Performance, however when (1) Technical Approach, (2) Key Personnel/Experience and (3) Past Performance are combined, they become slightly more important than price. Price is not rated. As the qualitative rating for the offeror’s technical proposals approach equality, the pricing factor will become more important in making the award determination. In the event that two or more technical proposals are determined not to have any substantial technical differences (i.e. are technically equivalent), award may be made to the lower priced quotation. It should be noted that award may be made to other than the lowest priced proposal if the Government determines that a price premium is warranted due to technical merit.

1. Technical Approach, The contractor shall describe its approach and the technical approach for achieving the Statement of Work. The offerors technical approach will address how your company will provide the required services as listed in the SOW.

The response must be clear, concise, specific; statements that your company, “understands the requirement and will comply” by themselves are not satisfactory. The proposal shall include a detailed description of each of the required courses, along with the degrees, materials and certificates, which addresses in-depth how the offeror plans to meet the requirement. The Offeror shall give a synopsis of the courses offered which are listed in the SOW.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide the required Animal Health Technician services and capabilities as set forth in the SOW in support of the National Canine Division.

Technical Approach will be evaluated by assigning the following ratings:

ADJECTIVAL

RATING

DEFINITIONS

Excellent

The proposal significantly exceeds, in all aspects, the standard for evaluation; very high probability of success; no significant weaknesses.

Good

The proposal meets the standard for evaluation; good probability of success; only minor weaknesses

Fair

Proposal contains several weaknesses, and minor strengths indicating the proposed effort will minimally, but acceptably, meets the Government’s requirements.

Weaknesses clearly outweigh strengths

Unsatisfactory

The proposal fails to meet some or all of the standard for evaluation; needs a major revision to the proposal to meet the standard, or may be uncorrectable.

The evaluation process will be carried out so as to objectively judge how advantageous the proposal is in reference to the technical evaluation factors outlined in the solicitation Section M.

One of several stated adjectival ratings (e.g., excellent, good, etc.) will be assigned in order to express judgment on each major evaluation factor except for price.

2. Key Personnel/Experience

The Government will evaluate degree to which the Offeror's proposed key Personnel/experience resume demonstrates the individual's ability to execute SOW requirements on the basis of strength of relevant education and training, depth and breadth of relevant experience. Key Personnel/Experience will include Qualifications (Experience, Education and Training) and Approach to Canine Center Technician.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide the required Canine Center Technician and capabilities as set forth in the SOW in support of the National Canine Division.

(2) Key Personnel/Experience will be evaluated by assigning the following ratings:

ADJECTIVAL

RATING

DEFINITIONS

Excellent

The Key Personnel significantly exceeds, in all aspects, the standard for evaluation; very high probability of success; no significant weaknesses.

Good

The Key Personnel meets the standard for evaluation; good probability of success; only minor weaknesses

Fair

The Key Personnel contains several weaknesses, and minor strengths indicating the proposed effort will minimally, but acceptably, meets the Government’s requirements.

Weaknesses clearly outweigh strengths

Unsatisfactory

The Key Personnel fails to meet some or all of the standard for evaluation; needs a major revision to the proposal to meet the standard, or may be uncorrectable.

(3) Past Performance

The quality of the contractor’s recent and relevant past performance will be evaluated to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation’s requirements. The Government will first evaluate the submitted references to determine the relevancy and recentness of the past performance information. This evaluation will be based on the degree to which the contract descriptions, Past and Present Performance Surveys, and other past performance information demonstrate relevant/recent experience compared to the requirements of this solicitation in terms of similar size, scope, and complexity. Next, the Government will evaluate the degree to which the performance of those efforts demonstrates an overall performance and quality record that supports an expectation of successful achievement of the solicitation requirements. The Government may use information provided by the contractor in its proposal submission, information in both Government and commercial databases, and other information available as ATF determines is reasonable in its evaluation of past performance.

If the contractor has no past performance, it will be rated as Neutral.

The Past Performance factor will be rated as follows:

(a) Recency: Recent is defined as contract performance within the past three years. The following ratings will be used for Past Performance Recency:

Adjectival Rating Description Recent Contract Performance occurred within the past three years from the date proposals are due.

Not Recent Contract Performance did not occur within the past three years from the date proposals are due.

(b) Relevancy: Relevancy includes, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming. The following ratings will be used for Past Performance Relevancy:

Adjectival Rating Description Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

(c) Performance Confidence Assessment: For past performance contract references determined to be both recent and relevant, the Government will evaluate the degree to which the performance of those efforts demonstrates an overall performance and quality record that supports an expectation of successful achievement of the solicitation’s requirements by assigning a performance confidence assessment rating as follows:

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

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.

(4) Price

The Offeror’s Price proposal will not receive an adjectival rating. The price evaluation will assess the accuracy, completeness, and reasonableness. This process involves verification that prices are included for all solicitation requirements, figures are correctly calculated, and prices are reasonable and presented in an adequate format. A proposal complying with solicitation requirements with the lowest price may not be selected for award if a higher-priced offer is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government.

The Government will evaluate price proposals for the purpose of making an award by adding the total price of all options to the base price. Evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise the options. If the Government determines that any separately priced line item(s) are significantly unbalanced, the proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

Pricing for the optional tasks and deliverables (if applicable) will also be evaluated. The exercise of optional tasks and deliverables will be at the sole discretion of the Government.

The Government will consider the option at FAR clause 52.217-8 to have been evaluated through the evaluation of rates proposed for all ordering periods.