W912CL-17-R-0100.pdf

SEE ADDENDUM

(No Collect Calls)

W912CL-17-R-0100 15-Feb-2017

b. TELEPHONE NUMBER

210-295-6679

8. OFFER DUE DATE/LOCAL TIME

02:00 PM 20 Mar 2017

5. SOLICITATION NUMBER 6. SOLICITATION ISSUE DATE

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012)

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

(TYPE OR PRINT)

(SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER)

ADDENDA ARE

26. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT (For Gov t. Use Only )

23.

CODE 10. THIS ACQUISITION IS

SUCH ADDRESS IN OFFER

17b. CHECK IF REMITTANCE IS DIFFERENT AND PUT

BELOW IS CHECKED

TELEPHONE NO.

W912CL9. ISSUED BY

18b. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN BLOCK 18a. UNLESS BLOCK

7. FOR SOLICITATION

INFORMATION CALL:

a. NAME

JANNEL GRAY

2. CONTRACT NO. 3. AWARD/EFFECTIVE DATE 4. ORDER NUMBER

(TYPE OR PRINT)

30b. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 30c. DATE SIGNED 31b. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

30a. SIGNATURE OF OFFEROR/CONTRACTOR 31a.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

0 27a. SOLICITATION INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-1. 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-3. 52.212-5 ARE ATTACHED.

25. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

1. REQUISITION NUMBER

20.

ADDITIONAL SHEETS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED.

OFFEROR TO COMPLETE BLOCKS 12, 17, 23, 24, AND 30

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

0010839467

ARE NOT ATTACHED

27b. CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-5 IS ATTACHED. ADDENDA ARE ARE NOT ATTACHED

(BLOCK 5), INCLUDING ANY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES WHICH ARE

SET FORTH HEREIN, IS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS:

. YOUR OFFER ON SOLICITATION

28. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN

% FOR:SET ASIDE:UNRESTRICTED OR X

SMALL BUSINESSX

17a.CONTRACTOR/ CODE FACILITY

OFFEROR CODE

410TH CONTRACTING SUPPORT BRIGADE

REGIONAL CONTRACTING CENTER AMERICAS

4075 GORGAS CIRCLE

FORT SAM HOUSTON TX 78234-2726

18a. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

RATED ORDER UNDER

DPAS (15 CFR 700)

13a. THIS CONTRACT IS A

13b. RATING

CODE15. DELIVER TO CODE W811P5 16. ADMINISTERED BY

12. DISCOUNT TERMS11. DELIVERY FOR FOB DESTINA-

TION UNLESS BLOCK IS

MARKED

SEE SCHEDULE

14. METHOD OF SOLICITATION

RFQ IFB RFPX

SOUTHCOM-HAP

PEDRO CORRALIZA

HQ USSOUTCHOM J7

CIVIL MILITARY ASSISTANCE

3511 NW 91ST AVE

DORAL FL 33172-1216

TEL: 305-437-3420 FAX: (315) 437-1443

FAX:

TEL: (210) 295-5719 SERVICE-DISABLED

VETERAN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS

8(A)

HUBZONE SMALL

BUSINESS

SIZE STANDARD:

$15,000,000

NAICS:

541614

X

OFFER DATED

29. AWARD OF CONTRACT: REF.

DELIVER ALL ITEMS SET FORTH OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND ON ANY

COPIES TO ISSUING OFFICE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO FURNISH AND

EMAIL:

TEL:

31c. DATE SIGNED

SEE SCHEDULE

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICESITEM NO. QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

24.22.21.19.

WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS (WOSB)

ELIGIBLE UNDER THE WOMEN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM

EDWOSB

32g. E-MAIL OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(CONTINUED)

PAGE 2 OF133

ACCEPTED, AND CONFORMS TO THE CONTRACT, EXCEPT AS NOTED: ______________________________________________________

32a. QUANTITY IN COLUMN 21 HAS BEEN

RECEIVED INSPECTED

32b. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32c. DATE 32d. PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32e. MAILING ADDRESS OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE 32f . TELEPHONE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

37. CHECK NUMBER

FINALPARTIALCOMPLETE

36. PAYMENT35. AMOUNT VERIFIED

CORRECT FOR

34. VOUCHER NUMBER

FINAL

33. SHIP NUMBER

PARTIAL

38. S/R ACCOUNT NUMBER 39. S/R VOUCHER NUMBER 40. PAID BY

41a. I CERTIFY THIS ACCOUNT IS CORRECT AND PROPER FOR PAYMENT

41b. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER 41c. DATE

42a. RECEIVED BY (Print)

42b. RECEIVED AT (Location)

42c. DATE REC'D (YY/MM/DD) 42d. TOTAL CONTAINERS

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012) BACK

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

SEE SCHEDULE

20.

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICES

21.

QUANTITY UNIT

22. 23.

UNIT PRICE

24.

AMOUNT

19.

ITEM NO.

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS)

Section SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

52.212-1 ADDENDUM

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 - INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

A. Proposal Submittal and Inquiries.

1. Proposals shall be submitted prior to the closing date and time identified on this SF1449 to the following address:

410th CONTRACTING SUPPORT BRIGADE

REGIONAL CONTRACTING CENTER

ATTN: JAN’NEL GRAY

4075 GORGAS CIRCLE

FORT SAM HOUSTON, TX 78234-2662

2. Electronic submissions via email or facsimile will not be accepted. Offers shall be mailed through a commercial carrier or hand carried.

3. The point of contact responsible for supplying additional information and answering all inquiries is the Contracting Officer (KO) via the Contract Specialist (KS). Address all questions or concerns that you may have to the Contract Specialist, Jan’nel Gray, and Contracting Officer, Mark Chase. All questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted in writing via email to: jannel.k.gray.civ@mail.mil and mark.r.chase.civ@mail.mil.

4. Site Visit. The Government will not hold a site visit for this requirement.

B. General Instructions. Offerors are hereby notified that NOT all offerors are expected to be selected for award. The Performance Work Statement establishes the types and kinds of services to be provided under this acquisition. Proposed award under solicitation W912CL-17-R-0100 will consist of three task areas (Assessment, Logistics, and Training). All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a Government team.

1. In order for proposals to receive full consideration for award, offerors should ensure that the information furnished in support of the proposal is factual, accurate and complete.

Failure to provide the information requested in this RFP may render the offeror’s proposal incomplete and ineligible for further considerations for award.

2. The selection of a source for award purposes will be conducted utilizing source selection procedures as delineated in FAR Part 15.3. Offers will be evaluated using the criteria “Evaluation Factors for Award” found at FAR Clause 52.212-2 – Evaluation—Commercial Items. Noncompliance with the Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements may hamper the Government's ability to properly evaluate the proposal and may result in elimination of the proposal from further consideration for contract award.

3. The Offer. The submission of the documentation specified below will constitute the offeror's acceptance of the terms and conditions of the RFP, concurrence with the Performance Work Statement, and contract type.

4. Disclosure of Proposal. Information contained in the offeror’s technical, past performance or price proposal must be released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) upon request from the public except to the extent it contains trade secrets and privileged or confidential commercial or financial information. Unsuccessful proposals will not be released pursuant to a FOIA request.

5. The offeror should apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR Clause 52.215-1(e) and FAR 3.104-4.

6. Offerors are encouraged to present their best technical proposal and prices in their initial proposal submission as it is the Government’s intention to award without discussions.

However, in accordance with (IAW) FAR Part 15.306, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed necessary. Should this occur, a competitive range will be determined and offerors notified. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency IAW FAR Part 15.306 (c)(2).

7. Instructions outlined in Section C, prescribe the format for the proposal and describe the approach for the development and presentation of proposal data. These instructions are designed to ensure the submission of necessary information to provide for the understanding and comprehensive evaluation of proposals.

8. If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain any error, ambiguity, or omission, or are otherwise seemingly unsound; the offeror shall immediately notify the KO in writing with supporting rationale. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

9. In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 Government Contract Files, the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

10. All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website at https://www.fbo.gov/. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation. It is the responsibility of each potential offeror to monitor these websites for any changes or amendments to solicitations prior to award.

11. Debriefings. The KO will promptly notify offerors who were not selected for award in accordance with FAR 15.503(b). Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.506.

C. Proposal Preparation Instructions

1. Offerer’s proposal shall consist of four (4) volumes:

Volume I RFP Documents Volume II Technical Proposal Volume III Past Performance Volume IV Price Proposal

2. Proposal Format

(a) Offerors shall submit an original proposal and the number of copies listed in Table 1 below.

(b) Each volume of the proposal should be separately bound in a three-ring loose leaf binder which shall permit the volume to lie flat when open. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification (W912CL-17-R-0100) and the offeror's name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder. All text shall be single spaced and printed black on white paper (Black and white requirement does not apply to graphics, photos, etc., Company stationary and logos are acceptable). Printing shall be easily readable (12-pitch type or 10 point proportional spacing.)

Cross-references should be utilized to preclude unnecessary duplication of data between sections.

In addition to submitting hard copies of the proposals, digital copies shall be provided on CD- ROM disk in Microsoft Word, PowerPoint and/or Excel as outlined in Table 1. The file name shall be “(Company Name) – Initial” for the first submission. The file name of later submissions (if necessary), shall be “(Company Name) – Revision (X)’ with X indicating the number of the revision. Page limitations are as follows:

Table 1

VOLUME

TITLE

NO. HARD

COPIES

NO. OF

DIGITAL

COPIES

(CD ROM)

PAGE LIMITS

I RFP Documents Original + Four* (4) One (1) N/A

II Technical Proposal Original + Four* (4) One (1) One Hundred (100)=Twenty-five

(25) for non-Seed Project sub-factors + Twenty-five (25) for each of two (2) Seed Project

III Past Performance Original + Four (4) One (1) Five (5) per reference

IV Price Proposal Original + Four* (4) One (1) N/A

*IMPORTANT – Each offeror is required to completely redact (no contractor references) from the hard copies (excluding Original) of the proposal (Volumes I and II), with the exception of the cover pages. Each offeror is required to completely redact (no contractor or price references) from the hard copies (excluding Original) of the proposal (Volume IV), with the exception of the cover page.

(c) Proposal Limitation. The proposal shall not exceed the limits stated above. If the page limits are exceeded, the pages in excess of the limit shall be removed and destroyed by Government contracting personnel. The Government will not accept any changes to the contractor’s proposal after the closing date of the solicitation (See FAR 15.208 for further information regarding late proposals). If discussions become necessary, page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors.

(d) Page Limit includes all appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, drawings, etc.

(e) Page Limit does not include covers for volumes, tables of contents, glossary of abbreviations and acronyms, indices, title pages, cross reference indices, and section dividers/tables if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. Pages will be counted if they contain any other information, i.e., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Pages marked “This page intentionally left blank” will not be counted.

(f) A page shall be an 8 ½ X 11” sheet of paper. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Letter size and spacing requirements for illustrations and tables can be at the discretion of the offeror but must be easily readable. Fold-outs will be counted as the appropriate number of pages based on an 8 ½” X 11” sheet of paper. Margins shall be at least 1 inch on the top and bottom and 3/4 inch on the side. Vendors shall number each page in order to eliminate any confusion. In the event a contractor creates an ambiguity in their numbering of pages, the Government may exercise its own discretion in counting pages.

(g) Indexing. Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

3. Proposal Content

(a) Volume I – RFP Documents. Volume I should be clearly marked “VOLUME I

– RFP Documents (W912CL-17-R-0100)”. Failure to follow the contract Proposal Preparation Instructions may cause your proposal to be deemed unacceptable by the Government. The General Volume shall be organized as follows and contain the identified information.

TAB A, Signed Documents - Offerors are required to submit all documents requiring signature of the Offeror. These shall be original signed copies to include a completed SF 1449 – Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items (Block 30); Amendment SF 30s (Block 15);

and all Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors. All final monetary extensions shall be in whole dollars only.

TAB B, Executive Summary – Provide an executive summary that introduces the contractor team and proposal submission, to include a list of team members and subcontractors and the task areas they are designed to provide support.

TAB C, Exceptions/Assumptions (if required) - Identification and explanation of any exceptions or deviations. Additionally, any assumptions used in the proposal preparation must be identified.

TAB D, General Information –Identification of the proposal point of contact (POC) and phone number as well as a list of the proposal package contents.

(b) Volume II – Technical Proposal

(1) Volume II should be clearly marked “VOLUME II – Technical Proposal (W912CL-17-R-0100)”. The Technical Proposal Volume shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims in the Offeror’s proposal. Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the Technical factors defined in the “Evaluation Factors for Award” found at FAR Clause 52.212-2 – Evaluation—Commercial Items. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Statements that the offeror understands, can, or will comply with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) (including referenced publications, technical data, etc.); statements paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof (including applicable publications, technical data, etc.); and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used,” etc. will be considered unacceptable. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and not desired.

(2) The Technical Proposal Volume, at a minimum, shall be prepared in a form consistent with the PWS and the evaluation criteria for award set forth in the “Evaluation Factors for Award”. The section shall be prepared in an orderly format and in sufficient detail to enable the Government to make a thorough evaluation of the contractor’s technical competence and ability to comply with the contract task requirements specified in the PWSs for Sub-factor 4 – “Seed Task Orders.” The offeror shall address as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing the PWS tasks. The volume should be organized according to the following general outline:

-Table of Contents -List of any Tables or Drawings -Technical

-Sub-factor 1: Management Approach -Sub-factor 2: Staffing Plan -Sub-factor 3: Seed Task Orders Technical Proposals*

Peru – Ancach/Huarez El Salvador – San Vicente

* Seed Task Order Technical Proposals –Offerors shall submit separate task order proposals both of the two Seed Task Orders. Task order proposals for Seed Task Orders will be used for evaluation purposes to determine successful Offerors for the IDIQ awards, as well as the individual Seed Task Orders. Offerors shall submit proposals for each of the Seed Projects;

failure to do so will result in automatic elimination from consideration for award.

a. Subfactor 1 – Management Approach: The offeror shall submit a Management Approach covering both the Prime and Subcontractors/Team Members. The Management Approach shall include a description of the following management activities:

i. The offeror’s processes to plan, direct, and control contract performance within the organizational structure (team structure as well as corporate structures), which shall include, at a minimum, an organizational chart with the lines of authority, supervision and coordination in providing oversight, scheduling and control of work;

ii. The offeror’s processes to support multiple, geographically-dispersed, complex projects simultaneously; and

iii. The offeror’s processes to acquire, manage, and control non-labor resources to include, but not limited to, property, inventory, travel and funding.

b. Subfactor 2 - Staffing Plan: The offeror shall submit a staffing plan covering both the Prime and Subcontractors/Team Members. The staffing plan shall include a description of the following staffing activities:

i. The offeror’s processes to recruit, hire, manage, and retain personnel with the background knowledge, skills, experience, and training to execute the tasks on the overall ID/IQ contract; and

ii. The offeror’s processes to create a labor pool of quality employees for the multiple, geographically-dispersed locations to execute the tasks of the overall ID/IQ contract.

c. Sub-factor 3 - Seed Task Order Technical Proposals: The Government will provide two Seed Task Order Requests for Proposal (TORFPs) that are representative of the task orders that may be executed under the resultant ID/IQ contracts. The Seed TORFPs are actual task orders that may be awarded under one or more of the new HAP ALT contracts. Offerors must submit proposals for each of the Seed Projects; failure to do so will result in automatic elimination from consideration for award.

The offeror shall submit proposals for both seed task order projects covering both the Prime and Subcontractors/Team Members. The proposals shall include, at a minimum, the following;

i. The offeror’s approach to execute the specific tasks found at paragraph 5 of each seed project PWS;

ii. Milestone Plan - a chart/table displaying the offeror’s proposed timeline for all major actions and deliverables associated with the each seed project PWS;

iii. Key Personnel - the offeror’s list of specialized personnel with resumes assigned to each seed project; and

iv. Labor Categories and Hours of Personnel - a list of the type of labor categories and labor hours associated with each seed project.

Note: The proposals shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements.

(c) Volume III - Volume III should be clearly marked “VOLUME III – Past Performance (W912CL-17-R-0100)”. The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offeror's recent and relevant Past Performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to this effort as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation and as defined in the “Evaluation Factors for Award”.

Past Performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform 20% of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price. The offeror shall submit, along with the information required in this paragraph, a consent letter, executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror's performance.

(1) The offeror shall include documentation regarding their relevant past performance as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation. The offeror SHALL NOT go back any farther than five (5) years for the submitted data.

(2) In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance Volume and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources. Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by offerors in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate offeror past performance. However, the burden of providing thorough, complete, and current past performance information as requested in this paragraph remains with the offerors. Proposals not containing the information requested by this paragraph risk either rejection or a less than acceptable performance rating by the Government. All past performance comments received will be taken into account and could affect the overall rating. The overall past performance evaluation is a subjective decision based on the whole of all data received. 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 past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

(3) Submission Requirements. The offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume containing the following:

Table of Contents Summary Page describing the role of the offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and /or joint venture partner that the offeror is required to provide Past Performance Specific Relevant Contract Reference Sheets for the past performance experience in accordance with Attachment 3.

Consent Letters executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing the release of past performance information so the offeror can respond to such information. A sample consent letter is attached as Attachment 2.

Client Authorization Letters for each identified effort for a commercial customer authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror’s performance.

Organization Structure Change History—Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant present or past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider present and past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the offeror(s), your "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

Specific Relevant Contracts Format - Sheets in accordance with Attachment 3 and are limited to five (5) pages per reference. The offeror shall provide documentation outlining the offeror’s past performance with contracts, as a prime or major subcontractor, which is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services being procured under this Solicitation. The submittal shall include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and how it was determined that the work performed previously was the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the work specified by this solicitation. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate.

Past Performance Questionnaire - See Attachment 4, Past Performance Questionnaire. For the contracts identified on each Specific Relevant Contract Reference, the offeror shall forward a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire to the points of contact responsible for monitoring performance under such contracts. The points of contact shall return the questionnaires directly to Jan’nel Gray and Mark Chase at jannel.k.gray.civ@mail.mil and mark.r.chase.civ@mail.mil or fax (210) 808-9473 not later than 22 March 2017. Any questionnaires not returned directly to the KO will not be reviewed and evaluated. The information contained in the questionnaires will be used to evaluate the offeror’s past performance. New entities that have no past customers shall annotate on the Summary Page that they have had no previous clients and that the minimum number of questionnaires cannot be provided.

(d) Volume IV- Price Proposal – Volume IV should be clearly marked “VOLUME IV – Price Proposal (W912CL-17-R-0100)”. The Offeror’s price proposal will consist of information in response to the Seed Task Order Request for Proposals (TORFPs). The price for each TORFP will be evaluated separately for award of seed task orders. The Offeror shall clearly explain the basis of price of each Seed Task Order, to include the discounts proposed, methodology for application of the discounts, pricing of non-labor resources, and pricing of travel.

The format for the price proposal shall be as follows:

-Tab A - Seed Task Order Price Proposals

Peru – Ancach/Huarez El Salvador – San Vicente

-Tab B – Assumptions (if required)

Tab A – Seed Task Order Price Proposals – Offerors shall prepare pricing information on all of the Seed Task Orders. Offerors shall submit separate pricing proposals for each of the Seed Task Orders. Pricing for Seed Task Orders will be used for evaluation purposes to determine successful offerors for the IDIQ awards. Additionally, pricing for each Seed Task Order will be used to determine the awardee of the individual Task Orders using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procedures.

(1) A summary total of all pricing proposals, to include loaded pricing from each Seed Task Order shall be submitted reflecting the final proposed price for all of the Seed Task Orders.

This summary, as a minimum, shall be presented in Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) format found in the table of each TORFP.

--Attachment 5a TORFP Peru – Ancach/Huarez EOC-DRW Training --Attachment 6a TORFP El Salvador – San Vicente EOC-DRW Training

(2) A spreadsheet shall also be provided to accurately reflect the details that resulted in the pricing found on each CLIN. Spreadsheets should be easily traceable. None of the files submitted shall have any read/write/password protection. Include all formulas in your spreadsheets and please include any notes deemed necessary to add clarity to the spreadsheet.

(3) The same level of detail required for prime proposals is required of subcontract proposals. The prime contractor shall include evaluations conducted on subcontract proposals relative to all components of the subcontract proposals. Examples of the type of detail required are reasonableness of rates, labor mix, terms and conditions, exceptions or additions, etc.

Subcontractor data may be submitted directly to the Government by subcontractors that do not wish to disclose the data to the prime contractors. The prime contractor shall alert the Government when subcontractors elect to submit information separately.

Tab B – Assumptions (if required) - Identification and explanation of any exceptions or deviations. Additionally, any assumptions used in the proposal preparation must be identified.

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items

A. BASIS FOR AWARD:

1. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). Award will be made to multiple offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR; whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, represents the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) offers.

2. Trade-offs between price and non-price factors are not permitted. Unbalanced, inaccurate or incomplete price proposals may be the grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. The Government will evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness using price analysis techniques. Proposed prices evaluated as unreasonable may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

3. The Government intends to award not more than eight (8) multiple, IDIQ/FFP contracts to include a base-year and four (4) one-year evaluated option years. The Government may award to more or less than eight offerors if it is deemed in the best interest of the Government. Offers received not conforming to Proposal Submittal instructions (Addendum to 52.212-1) will be considered ineligible for award. As set forth in FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions). Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a technical, price, and subcontract utilization standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be in the best interest of the Government. In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals

B. FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED. The Government will use the criteria set forth below in the evaluation and selection of offers for award. Each proposal will be evaluated on merit, overall value to the Government, and the ability to meet the objectives of the acquisition on the criteria listed herein.

1. The Offeror must submit a proposal that completely addresses all of the requirements listed in the Addendum to 52.212-1 – Instructions to Offerors and must demonstrate how each requirement will be satisfied. Cursory responses or responses which merely reiterate or reformulate the Addendum, the Performance Work Statement, the Seed Task Orders, or the solicitation will not be considered as satisfying the requirements of the RFP or as demonstrating the ability to perform. Unsupported approaches/concepts will result in a degraded rating. Failure to specifically follow proposal submission requirements/direction may also result in a degraded rating. Experience, qualifications, capability, and management commitment that clearly demonstrate and support the Offeror's claims are essential. The proposal must clearly demonstrate an understanding of the contract requirements and the ability to perform the approach proposed. The absence of such evidence will adversely influence the evaluation of the proposal.

2. The proposals will be evaluated under three evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Technical

- Technical Sub-factor 1: Management Approach

- Technical Sub-factor 2: Staffing Plan

- Technical Sub-factor 3: Seed Task Order Technical Proposals

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

3. The Price factor is still very important and will be evaluated, though not rated.

(a) FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL. The term “technical,” as used herein, refers to non-price factors other than past performance. The purpose of the technical factor is to: 1) assess whether an Offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements for this solicitation, and 2) evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

(1) Sub-factor 1 - Management Approach: The Offeror’s management approach will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s ability to manage the overall ID/IQ contract. This sub-factor is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates, at a minimum, the following:

a. The ability to plan, direct, and control contract performance within the organizational structure (team structure as well as corporate structures), which shall include, at a minimum, an organizational chart with the lines of authority, supervision and coordination in providing oversight, scheduling and control of work;

b. The ability to support multiple, geographically-dispersed, complex projects simultaneously; and

c. The ability to acquire, manage and control non-labor resources to include, but not limited to, property, inventory, travel and funding.

(2) Sub-factor 2 - Staffing Plan: The Offeror’s staffing plan will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s ability to staff the overall ID/IQ contract. This sub-factor is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates, at a minimum, the following:

a. The ability to recruit, hire, manage, and retain personnel with the background knowledge, skills, experience, and training to execute the tasks on the overall ID/IQ contract.

b. The ability to create a labor pool of quality employees for the multiple, geographically-dispersed locations to execute the tasks of the overall ID/IQ contract.

(3) Sub-factor 3 - Seed Task Order Technical Proposals: The Seed Task

Orders will be evaluated and rated collectively, as if the firm were required to execute them simultaneously. The Offeror’s proposals will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s ability to perform the specific task orders in the associated with each seed project PWS. This sub-factor is met when the Offeror’s proposals demonstrate, at a minimum, the following:

a. The Offeror’s ability to execute the specific tasks found at part 5 of each seed project PWS;

b. A milestone plan that displays an understanding of the timeline for all major actions and deliverables associated with the each seed project PWS;

c. A list of key personnel with resumes that display each individual’s experience on the field of disaster management, first response, and logistics reflecting an understanding by the Offeror of each seed project; and

d. The labor categories and hours of personnel that display an understanding of each seed project.

Note: Offerors shall submit proposals for both of the Seed Projects; failure to do so will result in automatic elimination from consideration for award.

The Technical factor will be assessed as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. The rating for technical proposals shall utilize the standards found at Table 2. The overall rating for the technical factor will be a composite of all of the sub-factors. Failure to obtain an Acceptable rating in any one sub-factor will result in an overall technical rating of Unacceptable.

Table 2. Technical Proposal Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The evaluation of the Technical factor is a two-step process:

Step I – The Government will evaluate proposals for Technical Sub-factors 1 and 2 (Management Approach and Staffing Plan) to determine acceptability as outlined in Table 2. If an Offeror’s technical proposal is found to be ‘Unacceptable’ for any one of the first two sub-factors, they will be eliminated from consideration. Only an ‘Acceptable’ rating in each of the sub-factors will allow a proposal to be advanced for evaluation under Step II.

Step II - The Government will review the Offerors’ technical proposals for all Seed Projects.

Every Offeror must submit a proposal for both Seed Projects under Sub-factor 3, Seed Task Order Technical Proposals. Each technical proposal needs to receive an ‘Acceptable’ rating (per Table 2a) to obtain an overall rating of ‘Acceptable.’ Failure by an Offeror to provide a proposal for any one or more of the Seed Projects will result in an automatic rating of ‘Unacceptable.’

Table 2a. Technical Proposal Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings for Task Order Requests for Proposal (TORFP)s Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the TORFP.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the TORFP.

(b) FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR: The Past Performance evaluation will assess the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that Offeror’s record of past performance. Past Performance is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the Offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems and State Department Watch Lists. Past performance areas of evaluation include:

- Technical Performance

- Business Relations

- Program Management

- Quality of Service

- Schedule/Timeliness of Service

- Customer Satisfaction

a. Each Offeror will receive a performance confidence assessment rating based on the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

b. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

c. Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature of work, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Table 3. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the

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 Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical (performing 20% of proposed effort) subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an Offeror’s contract history would give the most confidence that the Offeror will satisfy the current procurement. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

(2) Offerors 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. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

(c) FACTOR 3 - PRICE FACTOR: Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b). Through these techniques the Government will determine whether prices are reasonable, complete and balanced.

Reasonableness. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

Completeness/Accuracy. The Offeror’s proposal is in compliance with the Price Volume instructions in the solicitation. Unbalanced Pricing may be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), as applicable, to assess potential performance risk which could result in unreasonably high prices.

Only those offers evaluated to be ‘Acceptable’ in both the Technical and Past Performance factors will be considered eligible for evaluation under the Price Factor. Price will not be scored or rated. However, an objective assessment of each Offeror’s Price Proposal will be conducted for each of the Seed Projects. Every assessment will yield a Price Proposal Position which will be designated relevant to the objective assessments of all other Price

Proposal (The lowest priced proposal will be designated the Price Proposal Position of One (1), the second lowest priced proposal will be designated the Price Proposal Position of Two (2), the third lowest priced proposal will be designated the Price Proposal Position of Three (3), etc.).

After every Price Proposal for each Seed Project has been evaluated and designated a Price Proposal Position, an Aggregate value is computed by adding the Price Proposal Points from each Seed Project. An example is found at Table 4.

Table 4. (Example only) Offeror: Acme Management Services Seed Project Peru El Salvador Aggregate Position 5 2 7

After being determined to be technically acceptable, Offerors with the lowest Aggregate Price Proposal Positions will be eligible for award of an IDIQ contract. The Government intends to award to the eight (8) lowest aggregate totals. If the Government opts to award any of the Seed Projects simultaneous to the award of the IDIQ, the lowest priced contractor for each of the Seed Projects will receive a task order award.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Executive Summary describes the purpose for this Request for Proposal (RFP) and contains the most salient and pertinent aspects of this solicitation. If conflict exists between this summary and the provisions of this solicitation, the provisions of this solicitation govern.

1. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. The U.S. Army Expeditionary Command, 410th Contracting Support Brigade (CSB) hereby requests submission of proposals for personnel, management, and any other items and services not Government-furnished necessary to provide Services and Supplies as defined in this PWS for Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster relief and Disaster Preparedness (HAP) Assessment, Logistics, and Training (ALT) requirements. The areas of responsibility are Central America, South America, and the Caribbean.

1.1 The closing date and time for receipt of proposals at 410th CSB is 20 March 2017, 2:00 p.m. Central Standard Time (CST).

1.2 This RFP should not be discussed with any Government employee except the Contracting Officer, Mark Chase or his representatives, Jan’nel Gray and SFC Eric Kirkpatrick. Failure to adhere to this restriction may be grounds to declare your firm ineligible for consideration of any award resulting from this competitive acquisition.

1.3 It is requested that all questions and/or comments regarding this solicitation be submitted no later than 27 February 2017 at 3:00 p.m. CST. Questions and/or comments shall be directed in WRITING to Jan’nel Gray AND SFC Eric Kirkpatrick by email to jannel.k.gray.civ@mail.mil and eric.l.kirkpatrick.mail@mail.mil. Please indicate the RFP number, W912CL-17-R-0100 in the subject line.

2. SOLICITATION INFORMATION.

2.1 This RFP is issued on a total small business (SB) set-aside basis. This acquisition is for a multiple award indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity (IDIQ) firm-fixed price (FFP) contract with two cost reimbursement (COST) CLINs, one for reimbursable supplies and equipment with the second for travel expenditures. A Best Value Source Selection Process in accordance with FAR Part 15.101-2 – Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection is being utilized to select successful offerors.

2.2 The Government intends to award not more than eight (8) multiple, IDIQ/FFP contracts to include a base-year and four (4) one-year evaluated option years. The Government may award to more or less than eight offerors if it is deemed in the best interest of the Government.

2.2.1 In order to ensure an adequate number of contractors are available at all times to achieve effective competition on all task orders, the Government intends to maintain a pool of small business contractors with proven track records for competing and delivering quality support.

2.3 For proposal preparation purposes, the expected date for initiation of contract performance is 28 April 2017. Vendor proposals are to be valid for 120 days from submission.

2.4 Proposals are to be submitted in U.S. Dollars.

2.5 This will be an informal source selection.

2.6 All offerors are reminded to pay specific attention to "Instructions to Offerors" and "Evaluation – Commercial Items." This acquisition will be awarded based on evaluation of the offerors proposal using the factors and sub-factors listed in "Evaluation – Commercial Items.” of this RFP. Offerors are instructed to address functional sections in paragraph 5 of the PWS in their proposals.

2.7 Offerors should note the provision at the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, "Instructions to Offerors." The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, in writing, if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be in the Government’s best interest. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2.8 The solicitation includes Attachments that include Seed Projects provided for the development of proposals. These seed projects are requirements at the time of solicitation release. THIS IS NOT A GUARANTEE OF FUTURE WORKLOAD REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS CONTRACT. Future workload is subject to change based on changes in mission and mission priorities.

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief and Disaster Preparedness (HAP) Assessment, Logistic, and Training (ALT) Services

Part 1

GENERAL INFORMATION

1. GENERAL: This is a non-personal services Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract under which the personnel rendering the services are not subject, either by the contract’s terms or by the nature of its administration, to the supervision and control usually prevailing in relationships between the Government and its employees. The Contractor shall ensure that all Contractor employees and subcontractor employees are medically, dentally, and psychologically fit for performance of their duties.

1.1 Description of Services/Introduction: The Contractor shall provide all personnel, equipment, supplies, training…