RFP System Cylinders - 21-R-0013.pdf

Defense Logistics Agency Halon 1301 System Cylinder Refurbishment/Re-certification for Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS)

Reserve Program at Richmond

SP4703-21-R-0013

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 1

1.0 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to solicit all services and materials in accordance with all requirements specified in the Statement of Work and this solicitation for a Contractor to ship “turn-in” System Cylinders from DLA Aviation, Richmond, VA, to the Contractor’s facilities to re-certify and repaint cylinders, rebuild the valve, refill the completed cylinders with Halon 1301, install all safety components, and return the completed system cylinders to DLA Aviation, Richmond, VA, in support of the Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) Reserve Program Office located in Richmond.

The solicitation is organized into sections as follows:

• Section 1 contains contracting information. Special provisions, terms, and conditions.

• Section 2 provides the Statement of Work, which includes the objectives for the acquisition and states the performance and technical requirements.

• Section 3 provides instructions for submittal of proposals and defines what is required in a vendor’s submission.

• Section 4 provides evaluation criteria that will be the basis for award.

• Section 5 provides a list of the provisions and clauses applicable to this solicitation and any resulting contract.

1.2 COMMERCIAL SERVICES REQUIREMENT

This is a commercial service acquisition in accordance with the regulatory authority of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12. The solicitation will be issued using Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Items in accordance with FAR Subpart 13.5. This requirement is an unrestricted procurement with NAICS Code 561990 (small business size $12M).

1.3 GENERAL INFORMATION

The Offeror is required to submit sufficient information concerning the following areas to enable government personnel to fully ascertain capabilities of the Offeror to perform the requirements.

The proposal must be sufficient in detail and scope to permit evaluation and provide the evaluators a clear understanding of the Offeror’s capability to meet or exceed the defined elements as required by the solicitation.

All proposals must clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the Offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements and associated risks. The Offeror is able, willing, and competent to devote the resources necessary to meet the requirements and has valid and practical solutions for all requirements and potential risk areas. The Offeror must respond to all requirements of the solicitation and not alter or rearrange the solicitation. The Offeror has the burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with all the evaluation factors and/or subfactors identified in this solicitation. The Offeror is advised that the government may incorporate into the final contract any portions of the Offeror’s proposal deemed beneficial to the government

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 2 except for the Cost/Price volume; no cost or pricing information should appear in any volume except the Price Volume. Alternate proposals are not acceptable.

In presenting material in the proposal, the Offeror is advised that quality of information is more important than quantity. Clarity, brevity, and logical organization should be emphasized during proposal preparation. The Offeror is responsible to present enough information to allow the government to evaluate the proposed work effort, support, and approach, as well as the cost/price proposal without opening discussions. Statements that the prospective Offeror understands or can and/or will comply with the specifications and paraphrasing the requirements or parts thereof without supporting information are considered inadequate by the government and may result in a rating of unacceptable.

The Offeror must include any data that illustrates the adequacy of the various assumptions, approaches, and solutions to problems. Failure to address a specific factor or subfactor clearly may be considered a deficiency. There is no need to repeat information in more than one volume if an overlap exists; the detailed information must be included in the most logical place and summarized and referenced in other areas. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentation materials beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal is neither necessary nor desired.

The Offeror is expected to comply with all requirements of the RFP. The government advises the Offeror that taking exception or deviating from any term or condition of the RFP may make an offer unacceptable, and the proposal unawardable, unless the RFP expressly authorizes such an exception or deviation with regard to that specific term or condition. The government may consider any exception or deviation to any term or condition of the RFP that is not expressly authorized by the RFP to be a deficiency.

1.3.1 Incumbent Contractor

A-Gas US Inc.

1100 Haskins Rd Bowling Green, OH, 43402-9363

1.3.2 Historical Contract Numbers

SP4703-16-D-0001

SP4703-15-M-0047

SP4703-15-M-0036

SP4703-14-M-0044

SP4703-14-M-0036

1.4 PRICING

1.4.1 Pricing Mechanisms

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 3

The pricing mechanism to be used is a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Contract for a base year of 12 months and four, 12-month option periods.

1.4.2 Pricing and Performance Period

The period of performance will be a base period of 12 months with four, 12-month option periods.

The estimated start date for any contract resulting from this solicitation is September 2, 2021.

Contractors should use this date for the development of their pricing proposals.

Contractors are to provide firm-fixed pricing for the period of five years to equal a total price. While firm-fixed pricing is being used, the Contractor will also provide a breakdown of the items/service.

The total price for each CLIN based on total quantity will be evaluated. Individual/National Stock Number (NSN) quantity is for quoting purposes. Quantity variances different than stated in the SOW may occur between NSNs; however, the total quantity will remain the same unless a formal modification is implemented adjusting the total quantity. Differing quantities will be reconciled at the end of the period of performance (PoP) for final adjustments based on actual products received, if needed.

1.5 AWARD

1.5.1 Award without Discussion

The government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions. Proposals must contain the firm’s best terms within the proposed technical and business approach and must address all evaluation factors. Additionally, the government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if it is determined to be necessary. If a negotiation range is established, the government may limit the number of proposals in the negotiation range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

1.5.2 No Award

The government reserves the right to not make an award as a result of this solicitation if such award is determined contrary to the best interest of the government.

1.6 DISPUTES: AGREEMENT TO USE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

To maintain its business relationships with industry and to avoid costly litigation, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is committed to promoting the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) techniques, especially mediation. ADR is a voluntary process whereby a neutral third party assists the parties in resolving a dispute. DLA invites Contractors to join DLA in agreeing to use their best efforts to resolve any pre-award or post award dispute that may arise from this solicitation and any subsequent award without litigation. If unassisted negotiations are unsuccessful, the parties agree to use ADR techniques in an attempt to resolve the dispute. Likewise, the parties agree that formal protest procedures or litigation will only be considered as a last resort, such as when ADR is unsuccessful or when ADR has been documented to be inappropriate for resolving the dispute. If the ADR is not successful, the parties retain their existing rights.

Reserve Program at Richmond

SP4703-21-R-0013

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 4

1.7 ISSUE/CLOSING DATES

The period of the solicitation is as follows:

Issue Solicitation MAY 21, 2021

Closing Date of Solicitation JULY 12, 2021

3 PM EST

QUESTIONS: Offerors may submit questions requesting clarification of solicitation requirements by e-mailing the Contract Specialist, Tiffany.Welch@dla.mil, and the Contracting Officer, Heesun.Redmond@dla.mil. All questions must be received by 5 PM EST on Friday, May 31, 2021.

NO PHONE CALLS WILL BE ACCEPTED.

1.8 POINTS OF CONTACT

Contract Specialist:

Ms. Tiffany Welch E-mail: Tiffany.Welch@dla.mil

Contracting Officer:

Ms. Heesun Redmond E-mail: Heesun.Redmond@dla.mil

1.9 INVOICING INSTRUCTIONS

Invoices must be submitted through Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) in accordance with Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) clauses 252.232-7003 and 252.232-7006. Refer to https:\\wawf.eb.mil for additional information.

1.10 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

This RFP will be posted on beta.SAM.gov and is being made available to all firms that can meet the requirements. This RFP is being issued on an unrestricted basis. Contractors must submit their proposals electronically via e-mail to Tiffany.Welch@dla.mil AND Heesun.Redmond@dla.mil.

NOTE: Neither physical proposals nor facsimile proposals will be accepted.

** Interested vendors are hereby advised that the maximum size of an e-mail to be received by a dla.mil e-mail address is set to 15 MB. This limit includes attachments and digital signatures. Larger attachments will need to be split and sent via multiple e-mails.

All proposals must be identified with the Solicitation Number, requirement title, and volume number.

mailto:Tiffany.Welch@dla.mil mailto:Heesun.Redmond@dla.mil mailto:Tiffany.Welch@dla.mil mailto:Heesun.Redmond@dla.mil mailto:Tiffany.Welch@dla.mil mailto:Heesun.Redmond@dla.mil

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 5

The government will process late submissions of proposals in accordance with Paragraph (f) of FAR clause 52.212-1, Instructions to Contractors – Commercial Items (JUN 2020). If an offer is received late and is not eligible for consideration in accordance with FAR clause 52.215-1 and Alternate I, the government will reject that proposal without further consideration.

1.11 REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

By submission of an offer, the offeror acknowledges the requirement that a prospective awardee must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database prior to award, during performance, and through final payment of any contract, basic agreement, basic ordering agreement, or blanket purchasing agreement resulting from this solicitation.

See FAR Clause 52.204-7, System for Award Management, for all details and requirements.

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 6

2.0 STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW)

ATTACHED

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 7

3.0 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

3.1 CONTRACTOR PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

The proposal response will include a written portion to support evaluation of technical capability. This section specifies the format and content that Contractors must use for proposals responding to this RFP.

It is required that Contractors respond in accordance with these instructions. Failure to follow these instructions for formatting and content of proposals may result in rejection of the proposal without evaluation. The goal is not to restrict Contractors in the way they will perform their work, rather to ensure a certain degree of uniformity in the format of the responses for evaluation purposes. To receive full consideration, Contractors are encouraged to ensure that the information provided within their proposal is factual, accurate, and complete.

Each Contractor must submit a proposal that clearly and concisely describes and defines the Contractor’s response to the objectives/requirements contained in the RFP. Unnecessary elaboration or other presentations beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are not desired.

Elaborate artwork, expensive paper, bindings, and expensive visual or other presentation aids are neither necessary nor desired. The proposal must contain all the pertinent information in sufficient detail in the proposal where it contributes most critically to the discussion of the same information in the RFP. When necessary, the Contractor must refer to the initial discussion and identify its location within the proposal. Contractors should also identify risks inherent in their proposal, techniques used to mitigate those risks, and where such techniques were successfully employed in other contracts.

If a Contractor requires clarification of any part of this solicitation, the Contractor should submit the question via e-mail to the Contract Specialist/Contracting Officer by 5 PM EST on Friday, May 31, 2021, which will allow sufficient time to obtain an answer before the solicitation closing date. The government will publish all questions and answers and make distribution to all prospective Contractors.

Contractors who take exception to the provisions, terms, conditions, or any other aspect of this request may provide for such exceptions in Section 3.1.3 (refer to Cover Letter and Executive Summary).

However, a proposal not meeting the minimum required capabilities (threshold) identified herein will be deemed unacceptable and rejected without further consideration. Additionally, objections to any terms and conditions of the RFP may make the proposals unacceptable. A Contractor may correct a deficiency only through discussions. Alternate proposals are not authorized.

The government will process late submissions of proposals in accordance with FAR clause 52.215-1. If the proposal is received late and is not eligible for consideration in accordance with FAR clause 52.215-1 and Alternate I, then the government will reject that proposal without evaluation.

3.1.1 PROPOSAL FORMAT

All proposed pages should be in the following format/form:

• Page Size 8 ½” x 11”

• Single spaced, typed, and numbered pages

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 8

• Font size no less than 11

• Table and graph font size no less than 10

• Source selection information marked with “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the footer of each page containing source selection information.

The proposals should be prepared simply and economically and must be clear, legible, practical, specific, and complete as described in these instructions. Proposals should contain only pertinent information that is presented in a logical, coherent manner to provide delineation of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract requirements. Proposals should not include extraneous artwork or graphics.

Graphs must be presented in no smaller than a 10-pt. font and should contain a grid that allows values to be read directly from the graph to the same accuracy that a 10 x 10 to the ½ inch grid provides.

Graphic resolution, including such data as tables or charts, should be consistent with the purpose of the data presented.

** All proposals must be UNCLASSIFIED.

3.1.2 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION, PACKING, & MARKING

The Offeror will provide one complete e-mailed copy to the Contract Specialist and carbon copying (cc) the Contracting Officer.

E-mail proposals to Tiffany.Welch@dla.mil and cc to Heesun.Redmond@dla.mil. (See above regarding e-mail size limits.)

Offeror must not submit proposals by facsimile or physical mail.

In accordance with FAR 3.104-4, it is required that your company mark material that may be source selection information. Source selection information must be marked with the legend “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.” This includes the cover page and EACH page that may contain source selection information.

3.1.3 COVER LETTER AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The cover letter should be on company letterhead and must contain a statement committing the offeror to the proposal and stating its validity for a period of at least 180 days. This letter should also include the company name and CAGE as well as the name, title, phone number, and e-mail address for the person(s) authorized to negotiate with the government in connection with the RFP. The letter must be signed by a responsible officer or partner/principal of the Offeror who is authorized to bind the firm contractually.

The letter must also contain a statement that the proposal meets the specifications of each subsection of the RFP.

An Executive Summary of the Offeror’s entire proposal is required. This summary will not be evaluated but will be used to gain an understanding of the overall proposal contents. It should identify and highlight significant features of the proposal and include the salient points contained in the various volumes and chapters.

mailto:Heesun.Redmond@dla.mil

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 9

The following format should be followed in developing the summary:

1. General Information (see Note 1)

2. An overview of Technical Capability

3. RFP Qualifications/Deviations (see Note 2)

(Note 1): The General Information section of the Executive summary should include the following information:

a) Title of the proposal and proposal volume number,

b) Company name, address, and CAGE code,

c) Company Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN),

d) Dun and Bradstreet number,

e) The name, title, phone number, and e-mail address for the authorized company negotiator(s)/principal point of contact relative to the proposal.

(Note 2): Solicitation qualifications are proposed deviations from the requirements contained in the Request for Proposal and resultant contract terms and conditions. Qualifications where an offeror states it will not comply with one or more of these requirements may cause proposals to be considered unacceptable. Therefore, firms must address such qualifications and provide a detailed description of any form of exceptions, deviations, or waivers and indicate the firm’s difficulty with the applicable requirement in addition to the firm’s proposed approach.

Neither the Cover Letter nor the Executive Summary may include any price-related information.

3.1.4 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES

It is required that Contractors follow the proposal instructions stated in Section 3 and comply with the page specifications identified in Section 3.1.5.

Note: Pages exceeding the respective page limitations will not be considered part of the proposal and will not be evaluated. Font size must be no lower than 11.

Page limitations for each volume, if any, are specified in the table below. Title and table of contents pages do not count towards page limits. Proposal pages beyond the specified maximum limit will not be reviewed as part of the evaluation. If you do not follow the volume structure indicated below, your proposal may not be evaluated or further considered for award.

Proposals submitted must be contained in separate volumes as follows:

Volume I: Non-Price Proposal – 1 e-mailed copy

Factor 1: Technical/Risk Evaluation Subfactor A: Management Approach and Capabilities Subfactor B: Technical Approach

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 10

Factor 2: Past Performance/Performance Confidence Assessment Aspect One: Relevancy of Prior Contracts Aspect Two: Quality of Historical Projects

Volume II: Price Proposal – 1 e-mailed copy

Factor 3: Price

Subcontracting Plan, if applicable

Representations and Certifications in completed SF1449

Each volume must contain the following items in addition to the non-price and price proposal data required by the RFP:

Cover: The cover should indicate the following:

• Title of the proposal

• Proposal volume

• Volume No.

• Name, address, and CAGE of Contractor

• Name, title, e-mail address, and phone number of a principal point of contact Table of Contents: The table of contents must provide sufficient detail as to allow the important elements to be easily located.

Note: The Cover Page and Table of Contents are not included in page counts with respect to page limitations (see section 3.1.5).

3.1.5 Written Response: The RFP’s written proposal must be organized according to the following format, within the page limitations indicated, and include chapters for each of the following:

Volume Chapter Page Limit*

Format**

I. Signed Contractor Cover Letter and Executive Summary

(Precedes Vol. Ch. 1.) N/A PDF/Word

I. Non-Price Proposal Factor 1: Technical / Risk

Subfactor A: Management Approach and Capabilities

Subfactor B: Technical Approach

PDF/Word

PDF/Word

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 11

Factor 2: Past Performance Evaluation / Performance Confidence Assessment

No Limit

PDF/Word

II. Price Factor 3: Price Proposal No Limit

Schedule B spreadsheet:

Excel, Other pricing documents:

PDF/Word

N/A Subcontracting Plan, if applicable (Provide as a separate file)

No Limit

PDF/Word

N/A Representations and Certifications (Provide completed SF1449 as a separate file)

No Limit

PDF

The Contractor is responsible for providing adequate documentation to enable a thorough evaluation of the proposal.

All spreadsheet information should be on functional EXCEL spreadsheet(s) and should round to two places after the decimal (e.g. Total Column utilizes equation that sums appropriate lower level items).

3.2.1 VOLUME I: TECHNICAL/NON-PRICE PROPOSAL

3.2.1 Factor 1: Technical / Risk:

3.2.1.1 Subfactor A: Management Approach and Capabilities (Volume I/Chapter 1)

This subfactor is designed as an overview of the Contractor’s approach and their team partner’s approach (as applicable) to project management. Describe in detail your Management Approach and Capabilities, which must include the information requested in Section 4.2.1.1., items a.

through e. Contractor must provide evidence demonstrating that the organization has current capabilities for assuring performance of the requirement, including those of teaming partners and/or subcontractors. Also, include the roles and responsibilities of the team lead as well as team partners, if applicable.

3.2.1.2. Subfactor B: Technical Approach (Volume 1/Chapter 2)

Describe in detail your approach to research, analyze, and develop the specified deliverables and performance of each specific tasking in the SOW.

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 12

3.2.2 Factor 2: Past Performance / Performance Confidence Assessment (Volume 1/Chapter 3)

Contractors must identify their company’s past performance within the past five years (from the date of this solicitation). Contractors should relate their Past Performance to the requirements of this solicitation. In addition, the Contractor should provide a description of recent work performed that is similar in scope and complexity to the requirements of this RFP. It is required that the following information be correct and complete: contract number (including task/delivery order number(s) or project numbers, point of contact for each customer, to include CURRENT PHONE NUMBERS AND E- MAIL ADDRESSES and period of performance of each contract. Each reference must be clearly mapped to the key evaluation factors noted herein, the Contractor must provide information that demonstrates the relevancy and quality of prior contracts to the requirements of this solicitation, as well as to their proposed approach. The Contractor should note that the government might seek additional past performance information from other sources known to the government to assist in its evaluation.

Past Performance Questionnaire

A copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire is attached to this solicitation. Contractors should send copies to previous customers to document past performance. The questionnaire should be completed by the Contractor’s customers and e-mailed directly by those customers to the following address:

E-MAIL: Tiffany.Welch@dla.mil

3.3. VOLUME II - PRICE PROPOSAL

3.3.1 Factor 3: Pricing Instructions:

The Contractors are to provide firm-fixed pricing for the period stated in Section 1.3, Pricing, in the attached Schedule B spreadsheet as well as provide a PDF/Word document summarizing the pricing on one page. The Contractor is responsible for providing adequate documentation to enable a thorough evaluation of the proposal. Pricing documentation, in addition to a completed Schedule B spreadsheet, may be submitted. The total for each year must be included as well as the grand total. The following information must be provided in spreadsheet format:

• Supplies/Services Item Description

• Quantity

• Unit

• Unit Price

• Amount

• Total for Each Item

• Average Per Item Price

• Total for the Performance Period

• Grand Total (Base + Options)

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 13

The price proposal will reflect the Contractor’s understanding of the tasks that Contractor is expected to perform. Contractors are required to identify any assumptions that pertain to the prices proposed.

3.4. SUBCONTRACTING PLAN, AS APPLICABLE

As applicable, the Contractors are to provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan as a separate file in accordance with FAR Subpart 19.7, The Small Business Subcontracting Program, and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 219.7, Subcontracting plan requirements.

3.5. COMPLETED SF1449

The Contractors are to provide a completed SF1449 as a separate file.

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 14

4.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

4.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

The award must be made to the responsible firm whose proposal is determined to be the best value to the government considering technical factors, past performance, and prices. The government’s objective is to obtain the highest quality services considered necessary to achieve the stated objectives of this acquisition, with reasonable prices. Awards will be made on the basis of trade off source selection process. Non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price. Firms are advised that a proposal meeting the objectives and requirements with the lowest price may not necessarily be selected if award to a higher priced proposal is determined to be most advantageous to the government. However, between proposals evaluated as essentially technically equal, price will become the major consideration in selecting the best value. In the event of a single responsive proposal, the government reserves the right to utilize a Technically Acceptable evaluation in lieu of the official Source Selection process.

The proposal must demonstrate, to the government's satisfaction, that the Contractor will provide a solution and approach that will ensure the successful accomplishment of each stated requirement in Sections 2.3 and 2.4. The government will evaluate the submissions based on the material presented in the written proposals, including any proposed alternative performance standards and percentage disincentives. Note: The government may use information other than that provided by the Contractor in its proposal, including past performance information. Proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors if the government deems it appropriate.

4.2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The factors in the award decision will cover Non-Price and Price. All Non-price evaluation factors (Technical / Risk and Past Performance) when combined, are significantly more important than price.

The Non-Price Factors: Technical / Risk (factor 1) is more important than Past Performance / Performance Confidence Assessment (factor 2). The subfactors supporting the evaluation of factor 1 are listed in descending order of importance: Management Approach and Capabilities (subfactor A) is more important than Technical Approach (subfactor B).

Factor 1: Technical/Risk Evaluation.

Subfactor A: Management Approach and Capabilities Subfactor B: Technical Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance/Performance Confidence Assessment

Factor 3: Price

4.2.1 Factor 1: Technical / Risk:

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 15

Factor 1: Technical/Risk Evaluation. Table 2, Combined Technical/Risk Ratings, includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The two subfactors affecting a Contractor’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements are Management Approach and Capabilities (subfactor A) and Technical Approach (subfactor B). Proposals will be evaluated against the minimum performance or capability requirements established by the solicitation assessing the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks and assigned a Combined Technical/Risk rating pursuant to Table 2 included herein.

4.2.1.1 Subfactor A: Management Approach and Capabilities

In evaluation of this factor, proposals will be evaluated to ensure:

a. Contractor’s understanding of the work, as evidenced by proposed plan for overall implementation and execution of project (Note: specific explanations relating to each discrete task must be addressed under Subfactor B.).

b. Current corporate capability to perform contract, including relevant corporate experience (Note: Specific examples of previous contracts must be provided under Factor 2).

c. Evidence of a process for insuring quality and timeliness of deliverables.

d. Evidence of reach-back capability, including subcontractors, consultants, and business partners.

e. Evidence of turn-over rate and ability to rapidly hire and train personnel in a dynamic environment with changing workloads.

4.2.1.2 Subfactor B: Technical Approach

In evaluation of this subfactor, proposals will be evaluated to ensure:

Contractor’s technical approach demonstrates an understanding of the SOW requirements by addressing each specific task. Contractors are to include a discussion of methods and techniques for completing each discrete task and addressing potential problem areas to include solutions, new processes, or, if applicable, new technologies.

Offerors must submit the following descriptive technical information at a minimum: a description of the offeror’s equipment, facilities, technical skills, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certifications for Halon processing equipment and personnel, applicable Department of Transportation (DOT) Retesters Identification Number (RIN) to re-qualify Halon cylinders, number of people, mix of skills, and corresponding skill levels that the offeror is prepared to utilize in performance of this contract, resumes for all proposed personnel, highlighting any individual's experience performing the same or similar tasks as those identified in the Statement of Work.

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 16

Table 2. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

4.2.2 FACTOR 2: Past Performance / Performance Confidence Assessment

The government will consider the relevancy and quality of the Contractor’s past performance on other contracts/projects within the last five years.

Past Performance information will be provided by the offerors to show their relevancy of prior tasks and to determine the quality of their relevant past performance to assign a performance confidence assessment rating pursuant to Table 3 included herein. The evaluation will investigate information furnished by the offeror to ensure they consistently demonstrated a commitment to administration, customer satisfaction, timely delivery, and quality goods and services in prior contracts of similar scope and complexity.

Relevant past performance includes experience (within the past 5 years) performing refurbishment, recertification, and the refilling of Halon 1301 cylinders. Information provided is subject to verification by the government during the evaluation. Offerors must identify current phone numbers and e-mail addresses for all government and commercial points of contact. The government reserves the right to contact the government or commercial points of contact, project officials, and any other persons who have been involved with any of the contracts identified by the offeror or other contracts performed by the offeror for the purpose of verifying the information concerning the offeror’s past performance and to obtain additional information. For each project or contract, provide the following:

a. The length of experience.

b. Dollar value of the contract/project.

c. Identify the customer.

d. A brief description of the scope of the contract to include a description of the type and quantity of Halon 1301 cylinders that were refurbished and re-certified and the offeror’s performance record in performance of these contracts.

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 17

The past performance evaluation results in a performance confidence assessment rating of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements, derived at by considering each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance and how well the offeror performed on the contracts.

The Past Performance assessment is based on two aspects: Relevancy and Quality. In rating past performance and deriving a performance confidence assessment rating, the following will be considered:

Aspect One: Relevancy of Prior Contracts

In evaluation of this factor, proposals will be evaluated to ensure:

The offeror’s relevant past performance on prior efforts specified within their offer. Contractors must demonstrate this element via their written proposal. This aspect is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration will be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. More relevant past performance will be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than less relevant past performance. A Relevancy rating will be assigned per the four levels of relevancy as shown in the table below:

Table 3. 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 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.

Aspect Two: Quality of Historical Projects

In evaluation of this factor, proposals will be evaluated to ensure:

How well the Contractor performed on historical contracts. The past performance evaluation process gathers information from the Contractor’s proposal on how well the Contractor performed those past contracts and includes the Contractor’s: history of successful completion of projects; history of producing high-quality reports and deliverables; commitment to customer satisfaction; history of staying on schedule and within budget; and history of conformance to Subcontracting Plans. Past Performance information may be obtained from Past Performance Questionnaires, the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 18 other sources available to the government. The Quality rating of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable, or Neutral will be assigned for the levels as shown below in Table 4.

Evaluation of Aspect Two (Quality) will be based on information provided in the Contractor’s proposal and may include the government’s independent verification with Contractor’s prior customers or through past performance databases such as the SPRS. If the government’s information conflicts with assertions made in the Contractor’s proposal, the Contractor will be asked to clarify this information.

Proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors if the government deems it appropriate.

Table 4. Past Performance Quality Ratings Rating Definition

Outstanding Response demonstrates historical projects with outstanding relevant experience directly related to the requirement and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, staying on schedule and within budget. Generally, has an outstanding overall past performance based on Past Performance Questionnaires.

Good Response demonstrates historical projects with good relevant experience directly related to the requirement and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, staying on schedule and within budget. Generally, has a good overall past performance based on Past Performance Questionnaires.

Acceptable Response demonstrates historical projects with generally satisfactory relevant experience directly related to the requirement and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, staying on schedule and within budget. Generally, has an acceptable overall past performance based on Past Performance Questionnaires.

Marginal Response demonstrates generally poor overall relevant experience performing historical projects and does not exhibit experience directly related to the requirement and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, staying on schedule and within budget. Generally, has a marginal overall performance based on Past Performance Questionnaires.

Unacceptable Response demonstrates generally an unsatisfactory relevant overall experience performing historical projects and does not exhibit experience directly related to the requirement and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, staying on schedule and within budget. Generally, has an unacceptable overall past performance based on Past Performance Questionnaires.

Neutral The Neutral rating is to be assigned if the contractor has no relevant record of past performance. The contractor will not be rated favorably or unfavorably.

Performance Confidence Assessment:

Based on the government’s evaluation of the respective vendor’s past performance information (considering relevancy and quality), each vendor must be assigned an overall Performance Confidence Rating in accordance with the table below:

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the contractor’s recent / relevant performance record, the government has a high expectation that the contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 19

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the contractor’s recent / relevant performance record, the government has a reasonable expectation that the contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the contractor’s recent / relevant performance record, the government has a low expectation that the contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the contractor’s recent / relevant performance record, the government has no expectation that the contractor will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent / relevant performance record is available or the contractor’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

4.2.3 FACTOR 3: Price

The pricing for all offers not deemed to be technically unacceptable will be evaluated for (1) fairness, (2) reasonableness, and (3) completeness. Pricing will be evaluated for the total period of performance, which is inclusive of the base year and all option years. Offerors whose price is determined to be unfair, unreasonable, and/or incomplete may not be considered for award. Offerors must provide a price breakdown as completed in Schedule B Excel spreadsheet (attached) and a one page PDF/Word summarizing the pricing.

Options. The government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options must not obligate the government to exercise the option(s).

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 20

The attached Department of Defense (DoD) and DLA specific clauses and provisions apply.

For full text of the clauses, go to https://www.acquisition.gov/browse/index/far or http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffar1.htm.

GREEN PROCUREMENT: All products proposed for use in, or requisitioned under this contract must conform to federal Green Procurement regulations as they relate to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines. These products include Energy Star or Federal Energy Management Program designated electronics; United States Department of Agriculture bio-based designated products; Electronic Product Assessment Tool designated electronics; alternative fuels and fuel efficiency; and non-ozone depleting substances. Such products must meet contract performance requirements, taking into consideration price, competition, and availability factors.

NOTE TO THE CONTRACTOR REGARDING OPTION TO EXTEND SERVICES CLAUSES: "The government might find it necessary to exercise FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, at some point in this contract. At a minimum, pricing for this clause will be evaluated in every offer prior to award as part of the pricing provided for the base year and any relevant Option to Extend Term of the Contract period of performance per FAR 52.217-9. Should the Option to Extend Services clause be exercised, pricing will follow past practices and be set at the then current rates being utilized in the contract, prorated to the Extended Services performance periods being utilized. For example, should this clause be exercised for a two-month performance period to follow the option year one performance period of the contract, then the pricing would be set for two months at option year one pricing, barring the operation of other law."

ATTACHMENT 1: Schedule B (Attached electronically)

ATTACHMENT 2: SF1449 with Clauses and Provisions (Attached electronically)

ATTACHMENT 3: Past Performance Questionnaire (Attached electronically)

ATTACHMENT 4: Statement of Work (SOW) (Attached electronically)

ATTACHMENT 5: Warranty Plan (Attached electronically)

5.0 CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS (ATTACHED)

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffar1.htm

4.2.1 Factor 1: Technical / Risk: