W912D1-17-R-0RLB-Rev2.docx

DRAFT Request for Proposal

RCC-KU

Camp Arifjan, Kuwait

W912D1-17-R-0RLB

EVALUATION OF OFFERS: BEST VALUE - LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE

Offers will be evaluated by total price (Factor 1) from lowest to highest, and Technically Acceptable (Factor 2) and Past Performance (Factor 3). Element A, under technical is Unified Facilities Criteria compliance. Element B, under technical is Capability, which shall consist of (c) Prior Technical Experience and (d) Capacity. Factor 3, Past Performance will be evaluated at the IDIQ level. Past Performance information will be retrieved from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). Discussions will not be conducted. At the Government’s discretion based upon the depth and scope of mission requirements three to four of the offerors whose quotes are deemed lowest priced, and technically acceptable, determined to be responsible, responsive offerors are anticipated to receive a contract award. The Government reserves the right to award two to four MA IDIQ contracts, or none.

FACTOR 1 - Price: The Government will evaluate price for reasonableness. The offer’s total price evaluation will consist of offeror’s proposed total price for the base contract year, and all option periods.

FACTOR 2 - Technically Acceptable:

a. Element A - Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) compliance The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal on its compliance with United Facilities Criteria (UFC) Criteria detailed in the Statement of Work (SOW). Failure to clearly demonstrate clear compliance with UFC criteria will result in a determination that the offeror’s proposal is unacceptable.

b. Element B - Capability The offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements will be evaluated according its capability demonstrated by prior technical experience and capacity. The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature and scope of the work specified in the (SOW). The Government will assess the offeror’s ability to successfully deliver the RLB envelopes, packages, complexing, UFC compliant components, and materials outlined in the SOW. Failure to provide a reasonable and complete proposal shall reflect a lack of capability to perform the work requirements and will result in a determination that the offeror’s proposal is unacceptable. The following elements will be assessed as part of this factor:

c. Sub-Element - Prior Technical Experience

d. Sub-Element - Capacity

Prior Technical Experience/Capacity. Experience is the opportunity to learn by doing. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s prior technical experience and capacity on the basis of its number of opportunities, not number of years, and relevance to the work that will be required under the prospective contract to determine the likelihood that the offeror will be able to perform this contract in a manner that is completely successful.

(1) Adjectival Ratings: The following adjective ratings will be used in evaluation of the

Table 1 - Adjectival Ratings Technically Acceptable / Unacceptable Ratings

Technically Acceptable: Prototypes, demonstration models, used or refurbished instruments will not be considered. Evaluation of technical capability shall be based on the information provided in the proposal. The Government will evaluate whether the offeror’s proposal demonstrates it meets or exceeds all salient characteristics. Proposals that do not demonstrate the proposed RLBs meet all requirements, will not be considered further for award. If an offeror’s proposal does not indicate whether its proposed RLBs meet a certain minimum requirement, USARCENT will determine that it does not.

(2) A technically acceptable determination will be made based solely on information provided by the offeror. The offeror shall submit in addition to the price quote:

(3) Relocatable Building PRODUCT DATA, Specifications, DRAWINGS, and PRODUCT CATALOGS, that details the structure dimensions, component sizes, location and sizes of entrances, weight, load capacity, electrical capacity, wiring diagrams, location of outlets, parts list, schematic and other technical details including but not limited to HVAC/Environmental Control Unit manufacturer specifications and manuals, power interfaces, and other major components. The specification will be provided in digital media format.

(4) Photographs of Products

(5) Detailed product specification to include make, model, manufacturer part number, size, electrical and capacity

(6) TECHNICAL INFORMATION MUST BE DETAILED ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE A TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE DETERMINATION.

(7) The Contracting Officer may choose to request additional information from offerors regarding relevant technical experience. This may include the extent and relevance of current and previous experience in successfully providing supplies similar in size, scope and complexity to the requirements identified in this MA IDIQ solicitation, and when soliciting proposals for each delivery order.

(8) The manufacture and delivery of relocatable buildings conforming to the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), and the unique USARCENT requirements outlined in the SOW, complexity, and difficulty compared to the performance requirements under the prospective MA IDIQ contract that will supply RLBs for the entire twenty-nation CENTCOM Area of Responsibility.

(9) FACTOR 3 - Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Past Performance based upon it (a) relevancy and (b) experience confidence in relation to Government’s requirement as defined in the Statement of Work and applicable specifications.

a. Relevancy Definitions

Table 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Definitions

b. Past Performance and Experience Confidence Assessment Ratings

RCC-KU

Camp Arifjan, Kuwait