SOW Dog Food.pdf

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED

U.S Department of State (DOS)

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL)

U.S. Embassy- Guatemala City, Guatemala

Dry Dog Food for INL Guatemala K9 Program

SECTION3

DESCRIPTION OF REQUIREMENTS

GENERAL

The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) Section – Counternarcotics and Borders section of the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala is responsible for the administration of projects and funds that support the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL programs that fall under the authority derived from the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (FAA). Under the FAA, INL is charged with providing assistance to host governments to develop and implement effective counter narcotics, anticrime, and border control programs.

The International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) of the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala is responsible for the administration of programs and funds that come from INL-Washington. INL

Guatemala works very closely with U.S. law enforcement agencies to ensure that Guatemala has the training and tools needed in the fight against narco-trafficking and transnational organized crime. INL-G also works directly with various Government of Guatemala institutions, such as the Fifth Vice Ministry of Government, Public Ministry, Guatemalan Narcotics Police, Guatemalan National Police, Guatemalan Immigration, and Guatemalan Customs.

In accordance with the Bilateral Letter of Agreement between the Government of Guatemala and the USG under the Drug Control Project – Canine Program (K9 Program), canines will be trained and used for detection of narcotics, explosives and firearms. Support will be provided to the canine narcotics detector unit and regional canine training center program located Guatemala’s

Antinarcotics Police (Subdirección General de Análisis de Información Antinarcótica) Regional

Anti-Narcotics Training Center. This program will also support the development of trained canine teams for the detection of explosives, cellphone, and weapons as part of the initiative in the fight against International Terrorism and Arms. The canines will operate in airports, bus stations, ports of entry and checkpoints.

DESCRIPTION

INL-G requires the purchase of adult dry dog food for working dogs of the K9 Program through the establishment of a 5-year contract, base year plus four (4) option years for delivery in the established location in Guatemala.

THE SCHEDULE

1. TYPE OF CONTRACT

This requirement will result in the award of an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract based on a minimum – maximum amount to be ordered yearly, which are based on a

Firm Fixed Price (FFP) per pound in accordance with the specifications in Section 3 of this

Statement of Work (SOW). Orders placed for the IDIQ contract will be placed when required and could be minimum once a month. Quantities will vary depending on the request by the program or if any diet modification for the K-9 dogs.

No additional sums will be payable due to any escalation in the cost of materials, equipment, transportation, delivery, or labor, or because of the Contractor's failure to properly estimate or accurately predict the prices or difficulty of achieving the results required by this contract. Nor will the contract price be adjusted on account of fluctuations in the currency exchange rates.

2. EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF CONTRACT

This contract shall be effective on the date of the Contracting Officer's signature. The contract will be exercised for each of the option years and shall remain in full force and effect and until all the product is received and accepted by the U.S. Government in accordance with the multi-year contract.

3. SUPPLIES AND PRICING

The Contractor shall provide to the U.S. Government new, and fresh dry product in strict compliance with the specifications at the agreed upon firm fixed price. The prices listed below shall include all labor, transportation, delivery, materials, insurance, (see FAR 52.228-4 and 52.228-5) overhead and profit. The government will pay the contractor on a delivery order basis for Standard product that have been satisfactorily delivered. In the event of noncompliance with the specifications, the U.S.

Government reserves the right to demand collection(s) or terminate this requirement in its entirety.

Additionally, the Contractor shall perform the delivery of the product to the location set forth in

Section Place of Delivery, of this SOW.

Additionally, the Contractor shall cover all supplies, packaging, taxes/duties, and shipment of necessary items to complete except as otherwise provided herein.

3.1 QUANTITIES

BASE YEAR: Estimated Quantities

Description No.

Dogs

Estimated

Qty per Year

Min Qty

Order/Year

Max Qty

Order/Year Unit

Adult dog food similar or equal to

Eukanuba Premium Performance

30/20

33,600

2,800

40,000

Lbs.

FIRST OPTION YEAR:

Dogs

Estimated

Qty per Year

Min Qty

Order/Year

Max Qty

Order/Year Unit

Adult dog food similar or equal to

SECOND OPTION YEAR:

Dogs

Estimated

Qty per Year

Min Qty

Order/Year

Max Qty

Order/Year Unit

Adult dog food similar or equal to

THIRD OPTION YEAR:

Dogs

Estimated

Qty per Year

Min Qty

Order/Year

Max Qty

Order/Year Unit

Adult dog food similar or equal to

FOURTH OPTION YEAR:

Dogs

Estimated

Qty per Year

Min Qty

Order/Year

Max Qty

Order/Year Unit

Adult dog food similar or equal to

INL/Guatemala reserves the right to increase or decrease the quantity of dry dog food requested in each delivery order within the min/max quantities established.

VALUE ADDED TAX. Value Added Tax (VAT) is not applicable to this contract and shall not be included in the CLIN rates because INL has a tax exemption certificate from the Host Government.

During this contract period, the Government shall place orders totaling a minimum of 2800 lbs. This reflects the contract minimum for this period of performance.

3.2 PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

This requirement for Adult Dry Dog Food similar or equal to Eukanuba Premium Performance

30/20. Adult Dry Dog Food shall help working dogs’ digestion with an enhanced blend of fibers and prebiotics.

Product must contain the following factors:

Nutrition Facts:

• Crude Protein (min) 30%

• Crue Fat (min) 20%

• Crude Fiber (max) 4.1%

• Moisture (max) 10.0%

• Leucine (min) 1.74%

• Methionine (min) 0.5%

• Eicosapentaenoic Acid (EPA) (min) 0.17%

• Decosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) (min) 0.08%

• Vitamin E (min) 490 IU/kg

• Lutein 14 mg/kg

• Beta-carotene (min) 2 mg/kg

• Glucosamine (min) 500 mg/kg

• Chondroitin sulfate (min) 4 mg/kg

Ingredients

• Chicken by-product meal

• Corn flour

• Ground whole wheat

• Ground whole sorghum

• Ground whole barley

• Chicken fat

• Fish meal (source of fish oil),

• dried beet pulp, natural flavor chicken, dried egg product, potassium chloride, salt, sodium hex metaphosphate.

• Vitamin A supplement

• Vitamin D supplement

• Vitamin E supplement

• Vitamin B12 supplement

Calorie Content The diet shall contain 3960 kilocalories of metabolized energy (ME) per kilogram or 447 kilocalories ME per cup on an as fed basis (calculated).

3.3 PACKAGING: Dry Dog Food shall come in bags of up to 50 lbs. Bags must conserve its original package in good conditions. Expiration dates at time of delivery shall be no less than one (1) year.

4. WARRANTY

The Contractor shall preserve dog food in good conditions before the delivery.

All bags will be inspected at time of delivery. Any damage packaged shall be returned to the contractor and it shall be replaced immediately at no additional cost for the Government.

5. DELIVERY SCHEDULE

• The Contracting Officer will issue delivery task orders as required by the Program and the contractor shall deliver within a 5-working days delivery period after receipt of the delivery order.

• Any Contractor personnel involved with the delivery of the items shall comply with standard

U.S. Embassy regulations for receiving supplies.

• The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTRUCTING

Contractor personnel at the time of the deliveries with contact information.

6. PLACE OF DELIVERY

The Dog Food shall be delivered to the following destination:

Laguna El Pino, Km 47.5

Aldea El Cerinal, Carretera a El Salvador

Barberena, Santa Rosa

Guatemala

7. INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

The inspection and acceptance of the Dry Dog Food shall be performed by the U.S. Government upon their arrival at the interim destination. The payment(s) to the Contractor shall be made following satisfactory inspection and acceptance of the items.

8. ACQUISITION METHOD

8.1 AWARD TYPE:

The Government intends to award an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract based on a minimum-maximum amount ordered yearly, based on a pound Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP). Each order will be requested on each task order for the requirements identified in this RFQ. The FFP price per pound shall include all direct and indirect costs, profit, shipping/delivery charges, export requirements, insurance, etc. The price will not be subject to adjustment after award.

BASIS OF AWARD

EVALUATION OF QUOTATIONS:

The Government will use the cost-technical tradeoff source selection process, as defined in

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 (Tradeoff Process). The proposal offering the best value is the one that is most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Such an offer may not necessarily be the one offering the lowest price or receiving the highest non-price rating. For this solicitation, all technical evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price. Award will not be automatically determined by numerical calculation or formula relationship between the non-price factors and price. As technical factors, when combined, become more equal, the evaluated price rises in importance and may become the determining factor. To be eligible for award, offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements. Failure to comply with all solicitation requirements may result in the offeror being removed from award consideration. The

Government may reject, without consideration of price, any proposal that has been rated

“Unacceptable” under any technical factor. Such proposal is considered technically unacceptable.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

1. The Government reserves the right to reject a quotation that is technically unacceptable or unreasonably high in price.

2. The Government will determine acceptability by assessing the quoter's compliance with the terms of the RFQ.

3. The quoter must be able to demonstrate that it has the necessary resources to provide on-time delivery as well as a high level of quality for the requested items.

QUOTATION MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING

1. PRICE: unit and extended prices, inclusive of delivery charges.

2. GUARANTEED DELIVERY DATE: Equipment delivered to Government by TBD.

3. DESCRIPTION: Description/nomenclature of the item being quoted; product literature may be provided. Quotation must demonstrate compliance with all required features.

This also includes certification of new equipment, and description of warranty terms.

4. PAST PERFORMANCE: A list of contracts within the last two (2) years for the provision of comparable equipment to federal or commercial customers. The list shall include contact information (name, organization, email, and phone) and limited to no more than five (5) references.

5. Certification of authorized business for importation of dry dog food in country. As per customs regulations, only certified business are able to import dog food. If vendor is not established locally, then the certificate shall be from the business partner in the host country.

EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST). The

Government reserves the right to reject an offer if one of the following conditions exists:

Offeror fails to submit any of the required proposal documents specified above.

Offeror submits a cost/price proposal that cannot be adequately explained or substantiated.

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and sub factors is as follows:

1. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the

Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFQ. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFQ.

2. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is feasible and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements successfully within the required schedule.

2. For the purposes of this solicitation, categorical terms used to describe different elements of an offeror’s proposal are defined below.

Significant Strength: A significant outstanding or exceptional aspect of Offeror’s proposal that exceeds the specified performance requirements in a way to benefit the Government, and either will be included in the contract or is inherent in the Offeror’s process and greatly increases the likelihood of successful performance.

Strength: An aspect of the proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Risk: The potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration for risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or sub factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD:

Volume I: Factor 1 – Technical Proposal

Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal shall address each Technical Subfactor as it applies requirements set forth in this solicitation and Statement of Work (SOW). The Technical

Subfactors are as follows:

Subfactor 1: Nutritional Facts

Subfactor 2: Ingredients

Subfactor 3: Certification for importation of dog food

Subfactor 4: Past performance

The Technical Subfactor 1 is of greatest importance and will be weighted higher than Subfactors

2 and 3. Subfactor 4 is of least importance and will receive the lowest weighting.

Note: To receive consideration for award, an overall rating of no less than “ACCEPTABLE” must be achieved for Factor 1 – Technical. If any one of the subfactors is rated unacceptable (or

No Confidence in the case of Past Performance), the overall rating for Factor 1 Technical will be “UNACCEPTABLE.” Below is a summary of the possible adjectival ratings for Subfactors

1, 2, and 3.

Adjectival

Rating Description

Superior

Proposal meets all solicitation requirements, demonstrates a good understanding of the requirements, and has features that offer some advantage to the Government. Advantages/strengths generally outweigh any disadvantages/weaknesses. Good probability of success with very low degree of risk of unsuccessful performance.

Acceptable

Proposal meets basic solicitation requirements and demonstrates an adequate understanding of the requirements but does not offer significant advantages to the Government over basic RFP requirements. Disadvantages/weaknesses are not significant unless significant advantages are proposed that outweigh significant disadvantages. Where there were areas of concern, clarifications given by offeror, were acceptable. Reasonable probability of success with low degree of risk of unsuccessful performance.

Subfactor 4 will be rated on a different scale.

Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform solicitation requirements based on previous and current contract efforts. The Government may share a copy of the Past Performance Profile with the referenced customer to validate the offeror’s report. To facilitate the evaluation of past performance, the offeror shall ensure the accuracy of the information furnished on references (names, addresses, and phone numbers). Failure to provide accurate or complete reference information will have a negative impact on the evaluation of the offeror’s quote and may render it unacceptable.

The Government reserves the right to incorporate past performance information from commercial and Government sources and databases in its final rating determination for this factor. These sources may include, but are not limited to, Government audit reports, the

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and commercial sources

(such as Dun and Bradstreet Reports). In the event other sources conflict with the Offeror’s past performance information, the Offeror will be given an opportunity to address the inconsistencies.

Consideration will be given to similarity of services performed in Central and South American, complexity, and magnitude of effort. The four levels of relevancy are as shown below:

Adjectival

Rating Description

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet all requirements, nor does it demonstrate an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses, which may require correction. Some areas of concern may not have been addressed fully by Offeror, leaving some ambiguities. Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Proposal is not awardable without being rewritten.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved comparable scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved much of the 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.

The Performance Confidence Assessment chart below serves as the overall past performance rating. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be assigned reasonably will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past

Performance factor.

More recent performance shall have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown 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.

I. Volume II: Factor 2 – Price Proposal

Price is not scored; rather, the principal basis for evaluating price as a factor for award under this solicitation will be an evaluation of the reasonableness of the offeror’s respective “total overall price”’

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

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Rating Descriptio n 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. It is unlikely that Government intervention will be needed in order to obtain the required product/service.

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. Little Government intervention is expected to be needed in order to obtain the required product/service.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) 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. Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Some Government intervention is expected to be needed in order to obtain the required product/service.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

The principal manner for evaluating price reasonableness will be price competition. However, the Government will use one or more of the proposal analysis techniques stipulated in FAR

15.404 to conduct the evaluation.

The Government will also evaluate the total proposed price contained in Attachment 2, Pricing

Spreadsheet for price evaluation purposes.

The applicable pricing information proposed in Attachment 2, Pricing Spreadsheet will be used as the awarded pricing information if award is made without discussions or will be used as the basis of negotiation if award is made with discussions.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a delivery order without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), if required).

Therefore, the Offeror’s proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the

Contracting Officer determines them necessary.

(Rest of Page Intentionally Left Blank)