Proposal Submission Requirments.doc

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. OVERVIEW.

1.1 This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) under which Construction task orders for similar types of contracting projects illustrated in the “Typical Projects” section of the Scope of Work will be issued. This work may be performed within the boundaries of the Buffalo District. Task Orders issued under any resultant contract(s) will be Firm-Fixed Price.

1.2 For the purposes of this solicitation, the Government will utilize a Price Performance Trade-off (PPT) process. In a PPT, interested Offerors submit certain specified performance and capability proposals in conjunction with price proposals for review and consideration by the Government. The Government will evaluate these performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 A firm must be a HubZone Small Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business, or a Small Disadvantaged Small Business in order to submit a proposal.

2.2 Contractor Team Arrangements. Contractor Team Arrangements are considered an arrangement in which (1) two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or (2) a potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.6, the Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements; provided, the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in the offer. The Offeror shall identify the major or critical aspects of the requirement to be performed by those identified in the Contractor Team Arrangement. The submission must contain a narrative that clearly explains the relevance to a particular factor of information concerning a company that is part of a Contractor Team Arrangement. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance of the information to this procurement.

2.3 Information submitted about any company other than the Offeror, whether a predecessor company, affiliated company, subsidiary (including wholly owned subsidiaries), subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of this requirement, or other associated business, WILL NOT be evaluated for any factor unless the proposal contains a detailed narrative explaining why this submitted information is relevant to this acquisition. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance and weight of the information to this procurement. Information about subcontractors may not be given much weight unless the proposal contains some evidence that the subcontractor is committed to perform the work. Where information about a subcontractor is properly submitted and given significant weight during the evaluation, the failure of the Offeror to actually perform with that subcontractor may be grounds for termination for default.

2.4 Offerors shall submit their proposal to the address shown in Block 7 of Standard Form 1442.

2.6 Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

3. PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

3.1. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The response shall consist of two (2) separately bound parts, Part I - Price Proposal, and Part II - Past Performance Information.

3.2. Specific Instructions:

PART I – PRICE PROPOSAL - Submit original and one (1) copy

(a) Complete blocks 14, 15, 16, 17 (if applicable) 19 (if applicable), 20A, 20B, and 20C of the RFP. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP.

(b) Provide the proposed lump sum price for the attached task order.

(c) A copy of the ORCA certification shall be provided with the proposal.

(d) Format for proposal Part I shall be as follows:

(i) No more than five pages (not including the ORCA certification). A page is defined as one face of an 8 ½” x 11” sheet of paper containing information.

(ii) Typing shall not be less than 11 pitch.

PART II – PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION Submit original plus three (3) copies.

(a) Performance Surveys: The government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror's performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFP. The government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources such as other Federal Government offices/evaluation systems and commercial sources, to assess performance. Offerors will complete Section A of the Past and Present Performance Questionnaire below and submit questionnaires to the references for completion. The format of the questionnaire should not be altered in any way. The references should send the completed questionnaires to Eila.A.Olson@usace.army.mil by the closing date and time of the RFP. No more than three references shall be accepted. Include the questionnaires sent to the references in PART II of your proposal. The questionnaires should reflect the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three (3) years. Relevant contracts include the types of projects illustrated in the “Typical Projects” section of the Scope of Work. The references shall be similar to the “Typical Projects” referenced in the scope of work and be between $50,000 and $1,500,000 dollars in order to be considered relevant.

(b) Format for proposal Part II shall be as follows:

(i) No more than 20 pages (including copies of the questionnaires sent to references). A page is defined as one face of an 8 ½” x 11” sheet of paper containing information.

(ii) Typing shall not be less than 11 pitch.

3.3 Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth in this RFP will not be read or evaluated, and will be removed from the proposal.

PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

A. GENERAL INFORMATION:

Contractor’s Name: _________________________________ Telephone Number: _________________________________ Address: __________________________________________ Fax Number: _______________________________________

Contractor Point of Contact: ________________________________ Project Title and Brief Description of Work:

Contract Number Provided by Offeror: _____________________________________ Dollar Amount: _______________________________________ Contract Period or Dates of Performance Provided by Offeror:

Contractor performed as the ( Prime Contractor ( Sub-Contractor ( Key Personnel.

B. RESPONDENT INFORMATION:

Name of Respondent:

_______________________ Title: _________________________

Address: _____________________

Telephone Number: ___________________

Email Address: _______________________

C. EMAIL COMPLETED SURVEY FORM TO:

Eila.A.Olson@usace.army.mil D. PERFORMANCE INFORMATION: Choose the appropriate letter on the scale (E, G, A, M, P, and U) that most accurately describes the contractor’s performance or situation. PLEASE PROVIDE A NARRATIVE EXPLANATION FOR ANY RATINGS OF M or U.

Performance meets contractual requirements with many exceeded to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Performance meets contractual requirements with some exceeded to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with no more than some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Performance was not observed or not applicable to the current effort being reported against.

CONTRACTOR’S NAME: _______________________________

CONTRACT NUMBER: _________________________________

Place an “X” in the appropriate column using the definitions matrix above.

CONTRACTOR’S NAME: ___________________________________

CONTRACT NUMBER: _______________________________________

Remarks:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

EVALUATION FACTORS

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than cost or price considerations. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. All such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The Government intends to award 3 or more contracts as a result of this solicitation.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Initially offers shall be ranked according to price. An offeror’s proposed price will be determined by the lump sum amount bid on the attached task order. Any resulting contract(s) will have a maximum ordering amount of $15,000,000 over five years. However, the ordering amount for all contracts over the five year period can not exceed $15,000,000.

B. Using questionnaires, the contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on each offeror based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. The government reserves the right to make award(s) to higher priced offerors if lower priced offeror(s) do not receive an Excellent performance assessment. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance assessment of Excellent, Good, Adequate, Marginal, Poor, or Unknown as defined follows:

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS

Risk Level: Low

Risk Level: Moderate

the required effort based on their performance record.

Risk Level: High

the required effort based on their performance record.

Risk Level: Very High

Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

C. In evaluating past performance, the government will make a relevant/not relevant decision regarding the references provided by the contractor. In order to be considered relevant, the reference must be for a project between $50,000 and $1,500,000 and be similar to the “Typical Projects” referenced in the scope of work D. If the lowest priced offeror(s) is/are judged to have an Excellent performance assessment, that/those offer(s) represent the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that/those offeror(s) without further consideration of any other offers.

E. The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offeror(s) if the lowest priced offeror(s) is/are judged to have a performance assessment of "Good" or lower. In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

F. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the RFP. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

G. The government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.