Attachments_0002_and_0003.pdf

For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in

Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.

Get Adobe Reader Now!

http://www.adobe.com/go/reader

Attachment 0002 - Section L Additional Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors

L.1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. These instructions are a guide for preparing proposals in response to W52P1J-16-R-0027. These instructions, conditions, and notices to Offerors represent an addendum to and tailoring of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.212-1, and that in the event of a conflict, the language herein takes precedence over the terms of FAR 52.212-1 (reference FAR 12.302(a)). They describe the extent of information the Offeror should provide and emphasize the significant topic areas the Offeror should address in its proposal. Each Offeror shall submit a maximum of one proposal. The U.S. Government will not reimburse the Offeror for costs incurred in association with the preparation of its proposal. The Offeror is expected to review the performance work statement (PWS) contained in ’List of Attachments’ Section of this solicitation for further insight into the areas that the proposal must address. The Offeror shall include in its proposal sufficient information to enable the U.S. Government to determine the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements in each of the evaluated areas. Offerors are cautioned that repeating language of the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect understanding of the requirement. Offerors shall not specifically prepare samples or descriptive literature for submission with its proposal.

Adherence to the prescribed format is required. Data not submitted with the proposal, but submitted previously or presumed to be known, will not be considered as part of the proposal. Failure to provide a proposal in compliance with the instructions specified in this solicitation shall render the Offeror’s proposal non-compliant. The proposal will not be further evaluated and will not be further considered for award. The Offeror must provide information in sufficient detail to allow the U.S. Government to make an assessment of the Offeror’s ability to successfully execute the Heavy Lift 8 (HL8) effort.

The proposal shall be prepared in a clear and legible manner. In addition, the Offeror shall write the proposal in English and the proposal must be specific and complete as described in these instructions.

Offerors shall complete the Standard Form (SF) 1449 and indicate within its proposal submission that its offer may be accepted within 180 calendar days of the request for proposal (RFP) closing date.

L.2. POINT OF CONTACT. The procuring contract officer (PCO) is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Any questions or concerns shall be addressed, in English, to the PCO. Except as otherwise indicated, e-mail is the only method of communication.

The PCO for this acquisition is:

Stephanie A. Brown E-mail: usarmy.ria.acc.mbx.hl8@mail.mil

L.3. STANDARD PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS. This section specifies the format each Offeror shall use in preparing its proposal. The intent is not to restrict the manner in which proposals are prepared, but rather to ensure a certain degree of uniformity in proposal format for evaluation purposes. Four separate volumes shall be submitted.

These volumes shall be self-contained and shall not be cross-referenced, with the exception of the Price Volume. Unless specifically requested, pricing information shall not be contained in any volume except the Price Volume. Proposals not structured in accordance with (IAW) these instructions may be considered non-compliant and may not be evaluated. The U.S. Government will not assume the duty to search for data or information to cure problems discovered in any proposal submitted. The burden of providing complete and thorough information to address the elements below remains with the Offeror. The proposal shall include the following volumes subject to the limitations discussed below (exclusions listed, following the table):

Volume Title # of Copies Page Limit Due I Supplemental

Docs and Executive Summary

1 each CD/DVD or electronic (e-mail provided in Section L.2 of Attachment 0002)

No Limit (except for

10 pg Executive Summary)

RFP Closing Date

II Technical 1 each CD/DVD or

50 pages* RFP Closing

III Past Performance

1 each CD/DVD or

25 pages + 5 pages for each Major Subcontract or*

RFP Closing

IV Price 1 each CD/DVD or

No Limit RFP Closing

*Exclusions. Each page shall be counted except for the following:

- Cover pages

- Table of contents

- List of figures

- Glossaries

- Tabs / Dividers

- Other items as indicated in each Volume

- Combating Trafficking in Persons (CTIP) Compliance Plan

- Teaming Arrangements / Joint Ventures

- Past Performance Questionnaires

- Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) / Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Audits and Reviews

- Past Performance Consent Letters and Commitment Letters from Major Subcontractors (Labor Brokers are not considered Major Subcontractors)

- List of Points of Contact (POCs) who were sent a questionnaire per L.8.1(4)

L.3.1. Offerors shall submit one copy on CD/DVD or electronically (e-mail provided in Attachment 0002, Section L.2) for each Volume of the proposal, all submissions must be virus free. If the files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included. Offerors are responsible for ensuring all files and/or CD/DVDs function properly. Upon receipt of proposals, all files and/or CD/DVDs submitted will be scanned for viruses with an anti-virus program. If a virus is detected, the files and/or CD/DVDs shall not be considered when evaluating the Offeror’s proposal. At the Government’s discretion, the Offeror may not be given the opportunity to resubmit this information.

Offerors shall redact all company names/logos/pictures from the CD/DVD labels and all pages of the proposal with the exception of Volume I (Supplemental Documents and Executive Summary), Volume III (Past Performance), and Volume IV (Price). The electronic copies shall be submitted using Microsoft Office (MS) Word, MS Excel (for the Price Volume only) and Adobe Acrobat software (SF1449 signature page and any other RFP pages, as required). All copies of an individual volume shall be identical.

The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the electronic submission of the Offeror’s proposal to include SF1449, and all amendment cover sheets, SF 30, and all certifications requiring signature.

L.3.2. Each page is defined as one sheet, one-side. Excess pages will be removed from the back of each volume and will NOT be read or evaluated. Page limitations do not prohibit the Government from requesting additional supporting data.

L.3.3. Offerors shall use 8-1/2 x 11 inch size pages and a 12 point, or greater, Arial font.

Font requirements apply to bullets and other special text formatting. 10 point Arial font may be utilized for tables and graphic displays. 11 x 17 inch size pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations; however, each 11 x 17 inch size page counts as two pages.

L.3.4. Proposal Organization. No classified material shall appear anywhere in the proposal. All proposal volumes shall include:

L.3.4.1. Front cover, a table of contents, and the body of the proposal. All factor and subfactor narratives shall be clearly identified.

L.3.4.2. List of Tables and Figures for each Volume.

L.3.4.3. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms for each Volume.

L.3.5. At a minimum, all cover sheets shall contain the following information:

L.3.5.1. Offeror’s Proposal in response to Solicitation W52P1J-16-R-0027 IAW solicitation instructions

L.3.5.2. Volume Number and Title

L.3.5.3. Name and Address of Offeror (with the exception of Volume II)

L.3.5.4. Date of Submission

L.3.5.5. Offeror’s POC information to include phone number and e-mail (with the exception of Volume II)

L.4. THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA). FOIA and its amendment have resulted in an increasing number of requests from outside the U.S. Government for copies of contractors' proposals and other documents submitted to federal agencies. If an Offeror's submission contains information that it believes should be withheld from such requestors under FOIA on the grounds that it contains trade secrets and commercial or financial information [5 USC 552(b)(4)], the Offeror should mark its submissions in accordance with FAR 52.215-1 and in the following manner:

L.4.1. The following notice should be placed on the title page: Some parts of this document, as identified on individual pages, are considered by the submitter to be privileged or confidential trade secret or commercial or financial information not subject to mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Material considered privileged or confidential on such grounds is contained on page(s) ___.

L.4.2. Each individual item considered privileged or confidential under FOIA should be marked by placing the text within {brackets} with the following notice placed in the right margin: Privileged or Confidential.

Failure to do so may result in an involuntary release via a FOIA request.

L.5. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL. All proposals and related information shall be submitted in the format identified above, to the Army at the address shown below, no later than the date and time specified in the solicitation.

Army Contracting Command - Rock Island ATTN: Stephanie A. Brown 3055 Rodman Avenue Rock Island Arsenal, IL 61299-8000 or

ATTN: Stephanie A. Brown usarmy.ria.acc.mbx.hl8@mail.mil

L.5.1. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that a full and complete proposal is received by the date and time established within the solicitation for receipt of timely mailto:usarmy.ria.acc.mbx.hl8@mail.mil proposals. Receipt means actual receipt and acknowledgement by PCO, not merely receipt on the U.S. Government Installation. Failure to confirm receipt will result in the waiver of any argument of an offer being timely sent, but not delivered to the PCO. It is highly recommended that Offeror’s request a delivery confirmation or other form of acknowledgement to verify the proposal submission was received. Absent the opening of discussions, if required, the U.S. Government will not accept any changes, additions, or deletions for evaluation purposes. Should an Offeror have difficulties with the delivery of proposals, please immediately notify the PCO via e-mail to:

usarmy.ria.acc.mbx.hl8@mail.mil. Any proposal, or partial proposal, received after the time and date established for receipt of timely proposals will be considered late and will not be considered for award.

L.6 VOLUME I - SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

There is no page limit to this volume, except as noted below.

- Completed and Signed Solicitation and any Amendments

- Executive Summary (10 page limit)

L.6.1. Solicitation. Utilizing Adobe Acrobat, Offerors must provide a completed and signed copy of the solicitation including Sections A-K and any Amendments. Unless fill-ins are required, individual copies of the attachments in the ‘List of Attachments’ Section of the solicitation do not need to be included within this submission.

L.6.2. The Executive Summary should be a concise narrative of the entire proposal, including a highlight of any key or unique features, excluding price. The Executive Summary will not be evaluated for purposes of determining contract award. As such, any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other proposal volumes. The Offeror shall, at a minimum, provide an overview of its proposal and accurately summarize all parts of the proposal, except for the Price Volume.

L.7 VOLUME II – Technical. The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

L.7.1 Technical Subfactor 1 - Management Approach: The Offeror shall describe its approach to and demonstrate its understanding of the processes, procedures, capabilities and experience it will employ and rely upon to ensure successful execution of the requirements of the resulting contract from on-set through the final performance period. The Offeror's proposal should include but is not limited to discussion of the following aspects of executing the proposed management approach for all ordering periods. The Offeror must explain how it will manage logistics support for a large fleet of assets; manage complex projects; staffing (recruit and train workforce, retain key people, and transportation into and within theater); operate a program management office (staffing skill sets and levels in program management office), and manage operations for commercial line haul. The plan must be specific, detailed and complete and clearly and fully demonstrate how the Offeror will accomplish these tasks.

L.7.2 Technical Subfactor 2 - Technical Capability: The Offeror’s detailed technical capability plan must clearly and fully describe a sound technical approach, and a thorough understanding of technical methods and techniques for meeting performance standards and customer requirements. The submission shall be specific, detailed and complete. The proposal shall include the Offeror’s plan to provide all personnel, supervision, labor, materials, tools, and vehicles as well as all required equipment, other items and non-personal services necessary to accomplish the operation of the Government’s HL8 requirement IAW the PWS.

L.7.3 Technical Subfactor 3 - Maintenance and Quality Control Plans: The Offeror must explain its maintenance plans for the performance of both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance. The maintenance plan must describe the ability to provide scheduling, facilities, personnel and equipment. The Offeror shall describe how it will execute routine maintenance procedures on the fleet of vehicles. The Offeror’s proposal must also identify how the Offeror intends to execute its unscheduled maintenance plan to include vehicle recovery time, facilities, personnel, and equipment. The Offeror shall describe its ability to provide trained mechanics and adequate maintenance facilities without degradation to fleet readiness or availability; outline manufacturer approved maintenance schedule for planned and unplanned maintenance procedures.

The maintenance and quality control plan shall also detail Offeror's approach to implement a robust maintenance and quality control program providing comprehensive maintenance and quality control of its processes and procedures. The Offeror should describe its surveillance and oversight processes to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of its maintenance and quality control program. The Offeror’s proposal must identify and explain procedures to identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of defective services. In addition, the Offeror’s plan should address controls designed to ensure PWS requirements are met for acceptance, condition, safety standards, maintenance requirements, and record keeping. These plans must be realistic, achievable and supportable. The Offeror’s maintenance and quality control plan should demonstrate a sound technical approach and a thorough understanding of quality methods and techniques for meeting performance standards and customer requirements including:

1) Providing a comprehensive, independent plan for developing and maintaining the maintenance and quality control program.

2) Setting forth internal and external maintenance and quality control methods and policies for measuring, tracking, analyzing, reporting and implementing preventive and corrective actions required to ensure the quality performance standards required by the PWS and customer satisfaction is met.

3) Demonstrating a workable relationship, to include reporting requirements, between the Offeror’s management personnel.

4) Demonstrating integration of the maintenance and quality control system into daily operations.

5) Providing methods to be used for communications with the Government, measuring customer satisfaction, including a customer feedback program and a customer satisfaction reporting system.

L.7.4 Technical Subfactor 4 - Corporate and Key Personnel: The Offerors’ corporate management and key personnel section shall be specific, detailed and complete as to clearly and fully demonstrate that the Offeror has: 1) corporate experience in all areas of the PWS and 2) resources needed to acquire, train and maintain staffing levels to meet the requirements of the PWS.

The quality and relevance of the Offeror’s corporate experience will be evaluated.

Relevant corporate experience includes projects similar in location, size, scope and complexity. Scope is particularly important in corporate experience. If referenced experience does not apply to at least one of the functions in the PWS, it will not be considered. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to identify relevancy of each corporate experience reference provided. In addition, the experience provided shall be either ongoing or have been completed within three years of the release date of this solicitation. Corporate experience obtained beyond three years of the solicitation will not be evaluated.

L.7.5 Technical Subfactor 5 – CTIP Compliance Plan: The Offeror shall provide its detailed CTIP Compliance Plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-50. The Plan is implemented in order to significantly mitigate non-compliant Trafficking in Persons (TIP) issues and/or violations. The Offeror must exhibit a comprehensive technical approach in establishing a program that is defined by the standards outlined in its CTIP Compliance Plan. The Plan must describe how any alleged CTIP violations or issues are reported, investigated, and resolved. The Offeror must demonstrate how its Plan is implemented to ethically source, vet, and recruit host country nationals (HCNs) or third country nationals (TCNs) and prevent against abuse/exploitation by the contract employee's supervisors. The Plan shall establish and describe, at a minimum, the following:

L.7.5.1 The Offeror’s CTIP policy statement. Offerors are responsible for adhering to all requirements in accordance with FAR 52.222-50.

L.7.5.2 A risk analysis identifying areas subject to probable TIP violations and controls to be implemented to mitigate those risks during recruitment and active employment of potential employees.

L.7.5.3 The Offeror’s ethics, compliance awareness, and CTIP training program demonstrating the importance of employee safety, the employee’s legal rights, and actions to be taken against an employee, supervisor, or subcontractor for violations.

L.7.5.4 A process for employees to report, without fear of retaliation, any activity inconsistent with the policy prohibiting trafficking in persons. The description shall include detailed investigation procedures of all reports to determine validity and severity and the coordination of immediate notification of corrective action(s) in accordance with FAR 52.222-50(d).

L.7.5.5 A recruitment and wage plan shall address the following:

L.7.5.5.1 An affirmative statement that the Offeror understands and will comply with host country and country of origin labor laws and the legal processes to recruit and deploy workers from selected country of origin to the host country. The statement shall include the Offeror’s compliance to only permit the use of recruitment companies with TIP-trained employees that prohibit the charging of recruitment fees to the employee.

L.7.5.5.2 A list of the countries from which the Offeror or its recruitment company will source workers, copies of recruitment licenses to demonstrate requisite legal status to do overseas recruitment from the country of origin, and the process to recruit employees and establish wages meeting the applicable host country legal requirements.

L.7.5.5.3 The Offeror shall describe the methods used to audit and enforce the recruitment plan.

L.7.5.6 A housing plan to ensure that employee housing meets host country housing and safety standards.

L.7.5.7 Procedures to prevent employees, supervisors, or subcontractors at any tier from engaging in TIP and the process to resolve any such issues or violations if they occur. Controls must be identified to monitor, detect, and guard against potential coercion and the Offeror must describe the method used to audit those controls.

L.8 VOLUME III – Past Performance. This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts. This volume shall not exceed 25 pages plus five pages for each major subcontractor (exclusions listed in L.3).

L.8.1 Offerors may submit past performance information on up to three recent and relevant U.S. Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime Offeror and up to two recent and relevant U.S. Government and/or commercial contracts for each major subcontractor. For the purposes of this requirement, recent and relevant are defined in the basis for award (Incorporated as Attachment 0003, ‘Section M Additional Evaluation Factors for Award’ in the ‘List of Attachments’ Section of the Solicitation). The Offeror shall also submit the written consent of its major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractors' past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, signed letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors. Failure to submit signed letters of commitment may result in non-consideration of the major subcontractors identified. In regards to new corporate entities, Offerors may submit data on prior contracts involving its parent company. This volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Section 1 - Contract Descriptions. This section shall include the following information in the following format. Offeror data shall be listed first followed by each proposed major subcontractor, alphabetically.

(a) Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code and Data Universal Number System (DUNS) Number. It is recommended that Offerors limit references to those involving its performance as a prime or first tier subcontractor only. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and POC within the prime contractor organization.

(b) U.S. Government contracting activity, and current address, PCO's name, e-mail address and telephone numbers.

(c) U.S. Government’s technical representative/Contracting Officer Representative (COR) and current email address, and telephone numbers.

(d) U.S. Government contract administration activity and the Administrative Contracting Officer's (ACO) name, and current email address, and telephone number.

(e) Contract Number and Delivery Order Numbers (as applicable).

(f) Contract Type (specific type such as Fixed-Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Material (T&M), etc.). In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, indicate specific type (i.e., Requirements, Definite Quantity, and Indefinite Quantity) and secondary contract type (i.e., FP, CR, T&M, etc.).

(g) Awarded price/cost and final/projected price/cost.

(h) Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion or work.

(i) Period of Performance

(2) Section 2 - Performance. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1, Contract Description, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this solicitation. For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The Offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. The Offerors shall also provide copies of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the Offeror or proposed major subcontractor.

The Offeror shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination. For any contracts with adverse performance, the Offeror shall identify every recent and relevant contract awarded that encountered any performance problems related to deliverables or services, and any recent and relevant contracts that were in whole or in part terminated; these are excluded from the Past Performance Factor page count.

(3) Section 3 - Subcontracts. Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by this RFP will be assigned for performance within the Offeror's corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors. The information provided for the prime Offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE Code, DUNS Number and type of work to be performed by citing the applicable U.S.

Government PWS subparagraph number. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an Offeror's overall team who are expected to perform ten percent or more of the proposed effort's target cost and do not include labor brokers.

(4) Past Performance Questionnaire. For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a Past Performance Questionnaire ( Attachment 0021 in the ‘List of Attachments’ Section of the Solicitation) must be completed and submitted. The Offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to mail to:

usarmy.ria.acc.mbx.hl8@mail.mil and to the POC responsible for the past/current contract. The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date, to mail to: usarmy.ria.acc.mbx.hl8@mail.mil.

Early submission of Past Performance data is encouraged. However, Past Performance data may be submitted up through the solicitation closing date and time. The Offeror shall submit within its Past Performance Volume a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire. The POC list shall be submitted in table format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Company Name;

Contract Number; U.S. Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC email Address; and Date the questionnaire was emailed to the POC.

L.9 VOLUME IV – Price. Prices will be proposed under Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract line item numbers (CLINs). Competition under those FFP CLINs will be utilized to determine price reasonableness.

The FFP matrix (Attachment 0004 of the ‘List of Attachments’ Section of the Solicitation) of the proposal may be evaluated to determine whether the proposal reflects a thorough understanding of the PWS; and whether the price proposal (matrix) is consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the Offeror’s Technical proposal.

The U.S. Government reserves the right to require the submission of any data (i.e. cost or pricing data) necessary to validate the reasonableness of an offer.

L.9.1. Organization of Volume IV – Price

Volume IV shall contain the Offeror’s price proposal (matrix). Offerors DO NOT need to fill out Section B of the solicitation.

The Offeror must provide information as follows:

- Offerors shall provide proposed unit prices for the quantities solicited in the Pricing Matrix, Attachment 004 of the solicitation. Proposed unit prices are limited to whole dollars. Offerors shall complete all tabs (Daily, Monthly, Quarterly, Semi Annual, and Annual) within the Price Matrix, with the exception of the Summary tab. The Summary tab is automatically populated with the information from the other tabs. The proposed unit prices shall be the prices used by the U.S. Government to calculate the Total Evaluated Price and for the establishment of ceiling prices for future task order competitions. Offerors must propose unit prices for all CLINs, quantity ranges, and ordering periods identified in the Price Matrix. All five one-year ordering periods must be filled in by the Offerors and the six-month extension ordering period will automatically be calculated and populated. Failure to complete the Price Matrix may deem the Offeror ineligible for award. All proposed pricing will be binding as ceiling prices.

- All prices for this acquisition shall be stated in U.S. Dollars, rounded to whole dollars. This shall also include escalation, as appropriate.

- The following order periods apply as specified on the pricing matrix:

o Ordering Period One: Date of award through 364 days after award o Ordering Period Two: 365 days after award through 729 days after award o Ordering Period Three: 730 days after award date through 1,095 days after award o Ordering Period Four: 1,096 days after award date through 1,460 days after award o Ordering Period Five: 1,461 days after award date through 1,825 days after award o FAR Clause 52.217-8: 1,826 days after award date through 2,010 days after award under FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services

- Instructions for completion of the pricing matrix:

o All information to be filled in by the Offeror is highlighted on the pricing matrix in blue.

o Offerors shall enter its full name in the space provided.

o Offerors are required to state binding prices. Offerors shall enter unit prices for each range in the spaces provided for the contractor to fill-in.

The spreadsheet will limit the display of the offered unit prices to whole dollars.

o Offerors shall not enter any pricing data for the six-month option to Extend Period IAW FAR 52.217-8. The Price Matrix will automatically calculate and populate at the CLIN level.

o No other information is to be added to the pricing matrix, nor shall Offerors make any changes to the pricing matrix. Any alterations to the pricing matrix may deem the Offeror ineligible for award.

- With respect to pricing, the proposal response is presumed to represent the Offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. Any significant inconsistency between promised performance and price should be explained in the offer. For example, if the use of new and innovative techniques has an impact on unit price, the impact on price should be explained by the Offeror. If a management decision has been made to absorb a portion of the program prices that have not been included in the proposed pricing, that decision should be stated and qualified in the proposal. Any significant inconsistency, if not explained, raises a fundamental issue of the Offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of the work required, and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal. The burden of proof as to price credibility rests with the Offeror.

- All proposals shall be in compliance with Kuwait and local labor laws. Inclusion of any Kuwait and local labor laws considerations (i.e. Overtime) shall be included within the proposed unit prices. The U.S. Government will not provide interpretations of the Kuwait or local labor laws for Offerors.

- Pricing for Defense Base Act Insurance and Contractor Manpower Reporting shall be included within the unit prices proposed.

- Include discussion of any other assumptions which have impacts on the unit prices proposed within the Volume IV – Price submission.

Attachment 0003 - Section M Additional Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This acquisition will use best value lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection process, IAW FAR 15.101-2;

Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, dated March 2016. The U.S. Government will compare the Offeror’s proposal to Attachment 0002, ‘Section L Additional Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors’ in order to perform a compliance review. Any Offeror’s proposal determined non-compliant per the terms noted in Attachment 0002, ‘Section L Additional Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors’ will not be evaluated and will not be further considered for award. Award will be made using a LPTA Source Selection Process as described herein. The following evaluation factors will be used to determine award: Technical (inclusive of five subfactors: Management Approach, Technical Capability, Maintenance Plans, Corporate and Key Personnel, and Combating Trafficking in Persons (CTIP) Compliance Plan), Past Performance and Price. Army Contracting Command – Rock Island (ACC-RI) will make an award to the responsible contractor(s) whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is determined to provide the best value to the U.S.

Government. Proposals shall be evaluated for acceptability, but not ranked using the non-price factors/subfactors. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factor/subfactor.

M.2. NUMBER OF CONTRACT AWARD(S). ACC-RI intends to award up to four firm-fixed price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts. The U.S. Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and make no award if such action is in the best interest of the U.S. Government.

M.3. COMPETITIVE RANGE & DISCUSSIONS. In accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.306(c)(2), after evaluation of all proposals, the procuring contract officer (PCO) may make a competitive range determination for purposes of efficiency as set forth in Attachment 0002, ‘Section L Additional Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors’.

M.4. SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

M.4.1. The U.S. Government will review the completed solicitation and amendments for accurate completion and applicable signatures. Unless fill-ins are required, individual copies of attachments within the ‘List of Attachments’ Section of the Solicitation do not need to be included within this submission.

M.4.2. The Executive Summary will not be evaluated. Rather, it will be reviewed to assist evaluators in familiarizing themselves with the approach each Offeror will use to meet the requirements of the performance work statement (PWS).

M.5. EVALUATION FACTORS. The U.S. Government will evaluate the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Management Approach Subfactor 2: Technical Capability Subfactor 3: Maintenance and Quality Control Plans Subfactor 4: Corporate and Key Personnel Subfactor 5: CTIP Compliance Plan Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

M.6. EVALUATION APPROACH. As outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated March 2016, these factors and subfactors will be evaluated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis. These factors and subfactors will identify the minimum requirements that are key to successful contract performance and will evaluate price and the acceptability of products or services. Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability, but not ranked using the non-price factors/subfactors. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factor/subfactor. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

- 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 request for proposal (RFP). 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 RFP. Marginal levels of overall detail in any subfactor could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range.

- Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable 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 successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

M.7. EVALUATION APPROACH. The Government will evaluate Technical factors and subfactors using the following adjectival scale:

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.8. TECHNICAL FACTOR. The term “technical”, as used herein, refers to technical factors and subfactors (non-price), other than past performance. The U.S. Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine if the Offeror provides a sound and well-developed technical approach that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the personnel, resources, and compliance requirements necessary to properly execute contract requirements in a safe, secure, efficient, and quality based manner. The Technical factor is divided into the following subfactors:

M.8.1. Technical Subfactor 1 - Management Approach: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed Management Approach for all ordering periods. The U.S.

Government will evaluate whether the Offeror adequately explains how it will manage logistics support for a large fleet of line haul, heavy lift, and personnel transportation assets, manage complex projects; staffing (recruit and train workforce, retain key people, and transportation into and within theater); operate a program management office (staffing skill sets and levels in program management office), and manage operations for commercial line haul. The plan must be specific, detailed and complete and clearly and fully demonstrate of the Offeror will accomplish these tasks.

M.8.2. Technical Subfactor 2 - Technical Capability: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed Technical Capability. The U.S. Government will evaluate whether the Offeror clearly and fully describes a sound technical approach, and a thorough understanding of technical methods and techniques for meeting performance standards and customer requirements. Major emphasis of the U.S. Government’s evaluation will be placed on the Offeror’s plan to provide all personnel, supervision, labor, materials, tools, and vehicles as well as all required equipment, other items and non-personal services necessary to accomplish the operation of the U.S. Government’s Heavy Lift (HL8) requirement IAW the PWS.

M.8.3. Technical Subfactor 3 - Maintenance and Quality Control Plans: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s maintenance plan for the performance of both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and quality control plan. The U.S. Government will evaluate whether the maintenance plan adequately describes the Offeror’s ability to provide scheduling, facilities, and equipment. The Offeror’s proposal must adequately describe its ability to provide trained mechanics and adequate maintenance facilities without degradation to fleet readiness or availability; and outline manufacturer approved maintenance schedule for planned and unplanned maintenance procedures.

The U.S. Government will also evaluate whether the Offeror's approach and maintenance and quality control plan adequately details the Offeror’s plan to implement a robust maintenance and quality control program providing comprehensive maintenance and quality control of its processes and procedures. The Offeror must adequately describe its surveillance and oversight processes to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of its maintenance and quality control program. The U.S. Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposal adequately identifies and explains procedures to identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of defective services. In addition, the U.S. Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s plan adequately addresses controls designed to ensure PWS requirements are met for acceptance, condition, safety standards, maintenance requirements, and record keeping. These plans must be realistic, achievable and supportable. The U.S. Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s quality control plan adequately demonstrates a sound technical approach and a thorough understanding of quality methods and techniques for meeting performance standards and customer requirements including:

1) Providing a comprehensive, independent plan for developing and maintaining the QC program.

2) Setting forth internal and external quality control methods and policies for measuring, tracking, analyzing, reporting and implementing preventive and corrective actions required to ensure the quality performance standards required by the PWS and customer satisfaction is met.

3) Demonstrating a workable relationship, to include reporting requirements, between the Offeror’s management personnel.

4) Demonstrating integration of the quality control system into daily operations.

5) Providing methods to be used for communications with the Government, measuring customer satisfaction, including a customer feedback program and a customer satisfaction reporting system.

M.8.4. Technical Subfactor 4 – Corporate and Key Personnel: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s Corporate and Key Personnel. The evaluation will focus on the Offeror’s Corporate Management and Key Personnel section. The U.S. Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposal clearly and fully demonstrate that the Offeror has: 1) corporate experience in all areas of the PWS and 2) the resources needed to acquire, train and maintain staffing levels to meet the requirements of the PWS.

M.8.5. Technical Subfactor 5 –CTIP Compliance Plan: The Offeror’s detailed CTIP Compliance Plan will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror has completely satisfied the requirements set forth in L.7.5. The evaluation process will consider the adequacy and feasibility of the Plan to successfully mitigate non-compliant Trafficking in Persons (TIP) issues and/or violations. The Plan will be evaluated to determine the sufficiency of the described approach to ethically source, vet, and recruit host country nationals (HCNs) and/or third country nationals (TCNs) and prevent against abuse/exploitation by the contract employee’s supervisors.

M.8.5.1 The U.S. Government shall verify that the Offeror has included a CTIP policy statement that reflects full understanding and compliance of FAR 52.222- 50.

M.8.5.2 The U.S. Government shall evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s risk analysis and the extent to which controls will mitigate CTIP violations during recruitment and active employment.

M.8.5.3 The Offeror’s ethics, compliance, and training program shall be evaluated to ensure it effectively demonstrates the importance of employee safety, the employee’s legal rights, and the suitability of actions to be taken against an employee, supervisor, or subcontractor for violations.

M.8.5.4 The Offeror’s reporting and investigative processes shall be evaluated as to determine the extent to which the Offeror can establish and complete these processes successfully.

M.8.5.5 The U.S. Government shall verify that the Offeror has provided an affirmative statement that reflects full understanding and compliance with host nation and country of origin recruitment and labor laws and its acknowledgement to only permit the use of recruitment companies with TIP-trained employees that prohibit the charging of recruitment fees to the employee. The U.S. Government shall verify that the Offeror has provided a list of countries from which it will source workers and copies of recruitment licenses which demonstrate requisite legal status to do overseas recruitment from the country of origin. The Offeror’s processes to recruit and establish wages shall be evaluated to determine the extent in which the Offeror has demonstrated the understanding of the legal processes and knowledge required to recruit and deploy workers as to affirm safe recruitment practices. The Offeror’s methods for auditing and enforcement of the recruitment and wage plan will be evaluated as to determine the capability of its procedures used to ensure its required CTIP Compliance Plan standards are met.

M.8.5.6 The Offeror’s housing plan shall be evaluated to determine the extent to which it meets host nation housing and safety standards.

M.8.5.7 The U.S. Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s procedures to prevent employees, supervisors, or subcontractors from engaging in TIP.

The U.S. Government will evaluate the sufficiency of the Offeror’s process to resolve TIP issues or violations, if they occur. The Offeror’s controls will be evaluated to determine the extent to which they will successfully monitor, detect, and guard against potential coercion. The Offeror’s identified methods used to audit controls will be evaluated to determine the capability of its procedures used to ensure its required CTIP Compliance Plan standards are met.

M.9. PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR. The U.S. Government will evaluate Past Performance using the following adjectival scale:

PAST PERFORMANCE ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING METHOD

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the U.S.

Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the U.S.

Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment will be based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

Past Performance will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.305. However, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. Therefore, past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis.

Past performance will be initially evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. Second, the past performance evaluation will determine how well the Offeror performed on the prior contracts.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable”.

M.9.1. RECENT contracts are defined as follows (not a separate rating):

- Were awarded or commenced within three years prior to the closing date of this solicitation; or

- Were awarded or commenced prior to three years, but a contract period of performance (i.e., providing services pursuant to the contract’s performance work statement) remained on-going as of the closing date of this solicitation.

M.9.2. RELEVANCY is not separately rated. When determining relevancy the U.S.

Government will review the following for similarity with HL8: type of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting/teaming. The following definitions will be used to determine relevancy of past performance information:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY DESCRIPTIONS

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.

M.9.3. Following the recency and relevancy determination, the quality and how well the contractor performed on the contracts will be assessed. Documented results from the following sources form the support and basis for this assessment:

- Past performance information provided by the Offeror, as solicited.

- Past performance questionnaires (‘List of Attachments’ Section of the

Solicitation, Attachment 005).

- Past performance information may be obtained from established systems such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System, or other databases.

- Past performance information may also be obtained from other sources available to the U.S. Government T, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency;

and interviews with Program Managers, PCOs, Fee Determining Officials, etc.

The U.S. Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

The U.S. Government will focus its inquiries on the Offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including price, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an Offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform 10 percent or more of the proposed effort. Labor brokers are not considered major subcontractors. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process.

Therefore, the Offeror is reminded to include its most recent and relevant…