_Sections L and M - Maintain Airfield Pavement Joints.docx

Section L and M

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

L-1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

L-1.1 The purpose of this solicitation is to notify prospective contractors on the performance of construction services for the Maintain Airfield Pavement Joints, single-award IDIQ Requirements contract in support of Grissom Air Reserve Base. Construction services shall be provided for one (1) base year and four (4) one year option periods. In addition, the government may extend the total length of the contract by no more than (6) months after the end of the last option period if necessary, IAW with FAR 52.217-8

L-1.2 The Government intends to award a single-award IDIQ, firm-fixed-price contract. The period of performance for this effort will be 365 days for the base year and subsequent option periods.

L-1.3 This is an all-electronic solicitation release. Hard copies are not available. The Government will post all information pertaining to the solicitation and award of this requirement to the Electronic Posting System, also known as SAM.gov. It is the responsibility of each offeror to review the web page for postings of amendments, updates or changes to current information.

L-1.4 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 evaluation factors. 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.

L-1.5 Communications: Exchanges of information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. Questions received, in writing, and subsequent answers will be posted to SAM.gov. Offerors are required to submit in writing all questions and requests for clarifications by 06/12/2024 NLT 10:00am. The decision whether to respond to questions and requests for clarifications made after this date shall be at the sole discretion of the contracting officer. Failure of a prospective offeror to submit any questions will be construed to mean that the prospective offeror fully understands all requirements of the solicitation. Questions should be submitted via email to Cedric.roberts@us.af.mil

L-1.6 Joint Venture Offerors: If the offeror is a joint venture, the offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a copy of the joint venture agreement with proposal. The agreement shall include information, which identifies the responsibilities for each entity under this contract. The agreement shall demonstrate the relationship between firms and identify contractual relationships and authorities to bind each entity of the joint venture.

Either party to the joint venture may submit performance information on behalf of the joint venture. Joint venture performance will be evaluated and rated based on either party’s performance. The SBA must receive Joint Venture Agreements prior to proposal due date and approved before award of a resulting contract. If a joint venture is contemplated, then the assigned SBA Business Opportunity Specialist must be advised as soon as possible.

Ensure the agreement is submitted to the Contracting Officer in sufficient time to permit a regulatory compliance review. Any corrections and/or changes requested must allow for review time by the Contracting Officer and SBA Business Opportunity Specialist before the proposal due date. No corrections and/or changes are permitted after the time for submission of offers.

L-1.7 Teaming/Partnering Offerors: If the offer is based on a teaming/partnering relationship, the offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a copy of the teaming/partnership agreement. The agreement shall include information, which identifies the responsibilities for each entity under this contract. The agreement shall demonstrate the relationship between firms and identify contractual relationships and authorities to bind each entity of the teaming/partnering relationship.

L-1.8 Multiple Companies: If a company has multiple business ventures, only one of their business ventures will be allowed to submit a proposal.

L-1.9 Incurred Expenses: The Government is not responsible for any costs incurred or associated with preparation and submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation.

L-1.10 In compliance with FAR subpart 4.8, the Government will retain 1 copy of all unsuccessful proposals.

L-1.11 All proposals must be complete and respond directly to the requirements of this solicitation. Any commitments made in the proposal shall become a part of the resultant contract. Failure to comply with these instructions may result in the Government summarily rejecting the offeror’s proposal.

L-1.12 The project, price proposal, contract forms, performance references, and offeror information shall include the documentation listed below. The price proposal must be based on the offeror's proposal for the project as set forth in the solicitation documents (see Section J- List of Attachments). The government will evaluate the proposal in accordance with Section M- Evaluation Factors for Award

L-1.13 Contractor offers shall be submitted via email to Cedric.roberts@us.af.mil

L-2 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

L-2.1 Volume Organization: Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in 3 separate volumes as set forth below:

L-2.2 Volume Content

L-2.2.1 Volume I Contract Documents

L-2.2.1.1 SF1442 and Solicitation: Complete Blocks 14 - 20 (A - C) of SF1442 and all fill-in clauses in solicitation Sections I - L.

L-2.2.1.2 SF30, Amendment Form (If used): Complete Blocks 8 and 15 (A - C) for each amendment issued under this solicitation.

L-2.2.1.3 Clauses and Provisions: Offerors shall complete all areas contained in Administrative Data of Section Gand all other clauses and provisions, including exceptions or deviations, within Sections I, K, and L, as applicable to the offeror.

L-2.2.1.5 Joint Ventures and Teaming / Partnering Agreements: Joint ventures and teaming or partnering agreements must be disclosed and comply with Section K and Section L, paragraphs L-1.4 or L-1.5, as applicable, of the solicitation.

L-2.2.1.6 Proposal Documents. Submit all the required documents as specified in the drawing’s specifications.

L-2.2.2 Volume II Past Performance

L-2.2.2.1 Past Performance Information: Only references for relevant contracts are desired. Submit 1 copy.

L-2.2.2.2 Quality and satisfaction rating for contracts completed in the past 5 years: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrate customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for relevant past efforts/contracts (similar in scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires). 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.

L-2.2.2.3 Responsibility Determination. The Past Performance Information Retrieval System and Federal Awardee Performance & Integrity Information Systems as well any other Government-sponsored information available may be utilized to help make a responsibility determination in accordance with FAR subpart 9.104.

L-2.2.2.4 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 present/past performance. Provide a list of no more than 3, of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last 5 years. Relevant contracts include projects that are similar in scope and complexity of the subject project. The evaluation of past performance information will not 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. Provide the following information for each contract listed:

i. Company/Division name

ii. Product/Service

iii. Contracting Agency/Customer

iv. Contract Number

v. Contract Dollar Value

vi. Period of Performance

vii. Verified, up-to-date name, address & telephone number of the contracting officer

viii. Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

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

L-2.2.2.5 Subcontractor 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.

L-2.2.2.6 Documents submitted in response to this solicitation must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:

1. Requirements of the solicitation and Statement of Work (SOW), and government standards regulations pertaining to the SOW.

2. Evaluation Factors for Award.

L-2.2.3 Volume III- Price

L- 2.2.3.1 Price Information: Unit and extended pricing for all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for the base and option periods found in Section B, Supplies or Services and Price/Cost of this solicitation are required to be submitted to the government for evaluation. A total price should also be included. Prices shall not extend past the second decimal point for unit and extended amounts. The proposed price shall include all personnel, supplies, services, management, overhead, other directs costs, G&A, and profit to fulfill the contractual requirements of the SOW and any attachments.

L- 2.2.3.2 CAGE Code, UEI Number, and business-size standard under the applicable NAICS of 237310.

L- 2.2.3.3 SF1442 and Solicitation: Complete blocks 14 -19, 20a. - 20c. and 30a., b. and c. of the SF1442 as well as signing/acknowledging any amendments. In doing so, the offeror agrees to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP.

L- 2.2.3.4 Representations and Certifications: You must include all Representations and Certifications with your quote or reflect they are completed in SAM.gov.

L- 2.2.3.5 All offers shall remain valid for 180 calendar days. Multiple offers will not be accepted.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD M-1 BASIS FOR AWARD

M-1.1 This competitive acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to an offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence they will meet or exceed our requirements affordably and in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. To arrive at a best value decision, evaluations of the factors described in this provision will be completed.

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the best value tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible offerors whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph M-2 below.

The Government intends to award 1 contract as a result of this solicitation.

Email correspondence conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors shall not constitute discussions per FAR part 15. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. Offeror’s may be restricted to a short suspense (i.e., less than 24 hours) in responding to the Contracting Officer during any discussion period if necessary.

M-1.2 Evaluation Notices (ENs) and Final Proposal Revisions (FPR): If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to ENs and the FPR will be considered in making the decision. If the offeror's proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror's proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M-1.3 Rejection of Unreasonable Offers: The Government may reject any proposal from an unresponsive offeror, an unresponsible offeror, or a proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of price, program commitments, contract terms and conditions, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M-1.4 Contractor Responsibility: In accordance with FAR subpart 9.1, the Contracting Officer shall award contracts only to responsible vendors. No purchase or award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must:

a. Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them (FAR 9.104-3(a);

b. Be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments;

c. Have a satisfactory performance record (FAR 9.104-3(b) and FAR subpart 42.15). A prospective contractor shall not be determined responsible or nonresponsible solely on the basis of a lack of relevant performance history, except as provided in FAR 9.104-2;

d. Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics (for example, see FAR subpart 42.15);

e. Have the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them (FAR 9.104-3(a)); and

f. Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations (see also inverted domestic corporation prohibition at FAR 9.108).

In regard to resources, the contractor must be prepared to present acceptable evidence of subcontracts, commitments or explicit arrangements that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, services, materials, other resources or personnel.

Consideration of a prime contractor’s compliance with limitations on subcontracting shall be taken into account for the time period covered by the contract base period or quantities, plus option periods or quantities, if such options are considered when evaluating offers for award.

Pursuant to FAR 9.104-4, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to request adequate evidence of responsibility on the part of any prospective subcontractor(s). In the absence of information clearly indicating that the prospective contractor is responsible, the contracting officer shall make a determination of non-responsibility.

M-2 FACTORS AND RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

M-2.1 Factors: A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal shall be performed. The Government’s evaluation shall be based on the following factors:

Factor 1: Past Performance Factor 2: Price

M-2.2 Relative Importance: Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, past performance history will be evaluated on a basis that is significantly more important than cost or price considerations.

M-3 Evaluation Process Steps:

1. The evaluation process shall begin with a compliance review to verify all proposals conform to the administrative requirements set forth in Section L, Paragraph L-2.

2. In an effort to structure and streamline the evaluation process, conforming proposals shall then be ranked by proposed price for the project from lowest to highest and then evaluated for past performance and contractor responsibility (FAR 9.104-1).

3. If the lowest evaluated priced offeror is judged to have an overall "Substantial Confidence" performance rating and determined to be responsible per FAR 9.104-1, regardless that the offeror provided the lowest priced offer to the government, it may deemed that offer represent the best value for the Government and 1 award to that vendor may be made.

4. If the lowest priced evaluated offeror is not judged to have an overall "Substantial Confidence" performance rating, evaluations may continue (in ascending order by price) until 1 offeror is rated with "Substantial Confidence" or, until all offerors are evaluated.

5. If no offeror is deemed to have Substantial Confidence, the government is not required to make an award to any offeror.

6. If the price is not determined to be fair and reasonable for the lowest-priced “Substantial Confidence” offeror, no award will be made.

M-3.1 Past Performance Evaluation: The past performance evaluation considers the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance, all which shall be considered. These are combined to establish 1 performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror. There are 2 aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency and relevancy. Past performance references and data of either party to a joint venture or teaming arrangement will be considered to apply equally to the joint venture or teaming arrangement.

M-3.1.1 Recency: To be determined recent, offerors shall submit up to 3 project references that have been awarded, completed, or are ongoing within 3 years from the date of this solicitation (SF 1442 Block 3). Past performance information that does not meet this requirement will not be evaluated.

M-3.1.2 Relevance: To be determined relevant, an effort must be similar in scope and complexity of the project. Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The relevance ratings in Table 1 below shall be used when assessing offeror’s efforts.

Table 1- Past Performance Relevance Ratings

M-3.1.3 Performance Confidence Assessment: Efforts that are determined recent and relevant will then receive a confidence assessment rating in accordance with Table 2 below. If teaming partners/joint ventures both have prime contractor experience, then their past performance rating will be equal to a prime contractor. If the teaming partners/joint ventures have no prime contractor past performance, the past performance will be rated lower. If a prime contractor submits past performance of a proposed subcontractor, the past performance information will be rated lower than if submitted for the prime. In the case of offerors for which there is no or limited information on past contract, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and a performance confidence rating of “Neutral” will be assigned. Confidence ratings of Substantial and Satisfactory confidence will be rated more favorably than a “Neutral” confidence rating.

Table 2- Performance Confidence Assessments

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.

M-3.2 Price Evaluation: 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 cost data to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price. The government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures found in FAR Part 15.404-1(b) to ensure a fair and reasonable price.