W912QR22R0015.pdf

SEE ADDENDUM

(No Collect Calls)

W912QR22R0015 23-Nov-2021

b. TELEPHONE NUMBER

502.315.6197

8. OFFER DUE DATE/LOCAL TIME

10:00 AM 20 Dec 2021

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 X 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.

W912QR9. ISSUED BY

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

7. FOR SOLICITATION

INFORMATION CALL:

a. NAME

ADAM WANTLAND

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

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

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

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 BUSINESS

17a.CONTRACTOR/ CODE FACILITY

OFFEROR CODE

U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOUISVILLE

600 DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. PLACE

ROOM 821

LOUISVILLE KY 40202-2239

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 16. ADMINISTERED BY

SEE SCHEDULE

12. DISCOUNT TERMS11. DELIVERY FOR FOB DESTINA-

TION UNLESS BLOCK IS

MARKED

SEE SCHEDULE

14. METHOD OF SOLICITATION

RFQ IFB RFPX

502.315.6195 OR 6193FAX:

TEL: 502.315.6172 SERVICE-DISABLED

VETERAN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS

X 8(A)

HUBZONE SMALL

BUSINESS

SIZE STANDARD:

$19,500,000

NAICS:

561720

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 OF166

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.

W912QR22R0015

INSTRUCTIONS

This Request for Proposal (RFP) is for Janitorial Services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Real Estate Division; including the states of Indiana and Ohio.

NOTE: This solicitation is for the award of one (1) IDIQ contract consisting of a one (1) year base period and four (4), one (1) year option periods. Total capacity available for the IDIQ Contract will not exceed $10,000,000.00. The full capacity is available from the date of initial award.

This procurement is 100% set-aside for 8(a), NAICS 561720, with a size determination of $19.5 million.

Award will be based on the Best Value to the Government.

There is no bonding requirement for this procurement.

Method of Payment under this contract will be Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) to a commercial bank account specified by the Contractor.

Proposals will not be accepted for quantities less than the quantities specified in the Price Breakout Schedule.

Failure to submit a unit price for all items listed (base year and option years) will be considered as a material deviation from the requirements of the RFP and the Proposal will be rejected.

Note: Page numbering in this document may not be accurate.

All contractors must be registered in the System for Award Management (www.SAM.gov) prior to award of a contract. All proposed contractors are highly encouraged to review FAR Clause 52.232-33 Payments by Electronic Funds Transfer – System for Award Management, which indicates “All payments by the Government under this contract shall be made by electronic funds transfer (EFT).” Those not currently registered can obtain registration by going to the website http://www.SAM.gov. The process can usually be completed from 24 to 48 hours after submission. Contractors will need to obtain a unique entity identifier for processing their registration. Refer to www.SAM.gov for information formerly found in CCR, EPLS, ORCA and FedReg.

Please begin the registration process immediately in order to avoid delay of the contract award should your firm be selected.

SAM is completely free of charge for both registrants and users.

Proposals: ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THIS PROPOSAL ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH DOD SAFE. No paper copies, CD-ROMs or facsimile submissions will be accepted. Electronic Proposal Submission is required through the Army’s Electronic File Sharing Service, DOD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil). The DOD SAFE Application is used to send large files to individuals that would normally be too large to send via email. There are no user accounts for SAFE. Authentication is handled via email.

Anyone has access to DOD SAFE, and the application is available for use by anyone. The SAFE “Getting Started Guide” has information on how to utilize the system (https://safe.apps.mil/about.php). Instructions for uploading are as follows:

1. Send an email to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist to receive the link to drop off your proposal. This will need to be completed five (5) business days prior to proposal due date.

a. Adam Wantland, Contract Specialist at Adam.M.Wantland@usace.army.mil

b. Emily Moore, Contracting Officer at Emily.A.Moore@usace.army.mil

2. You will receive an email with the link to submit your drop-off. The link will be provided no later than two

(2) business days prior to the proposal due date.

3. Short Note to the Recipients: Click the Add Files or Drag and Drop your files. For file description, enter

W912QR22R0015-FIRMNAME.

4. Click Upload button to send documents.

5. Guest users will need to check their email to verify their email address before the recipients will be notified. (Government-issued Common Access Cards (CACs) are not required).

File Size Limitations: Offerors are advised to follow the DOD SAFE instructions for uploading files. DOD SAFE supports delivery up to 8GB. If needed, Offerors are advised to break the files down into smaller sections in order to upload it to the system. In such cases, please divide the sections as logically as possible and be sure to clearly name the files as specified below.

File Naming Convention: To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention:

W912QR22R0015-FIRMNAME-VOLUME I

W912QR22R0015-FIRMNAME-VOLUME II

Each file name shall begin with the solicitation number followed by the firm’s name and a brief file description.

Please see examples above.

File Organization: Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled. Font size shall be 10 or larger. Pages shall be letter sized (larger page sizes (such as 11x17 fold-outs, etc.) will be counted as two pages. Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors. Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented. Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in the each section for each factor.

Upload Completion & Deadline: Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date specified on the solicitation document. The time & date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion / delivery time & date recorded within DOD SAFE site. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g. 10MB or more) will take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the upload confirmation for their record. Submissions after the deadline will be considered late and will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208.

Electronic Files: Files shall be in their native format (i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text. Text and graphics portfolios of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by Microsoft Office or Adobe applications. Data submitted in a spreadsheet format shall be readable by MS Excel (all cells and formulas should be unlocked).

Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of Provision “FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2017),” subparagraph (e), which is found in 00 21 00 Instructions of the RFP. The Government will endeavor to honor the restrictions against release requested by Offerors, to the extent permitted under United States law and regulations.

EVALUTATION CRITERIA

SECTION 00 22 00

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL AND EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR SINGLE PHASE

1. Overview

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for Janitorial Services provided to various recruiting stations throughout Indiana and Ohio. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror, whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government, all factors considered.

1.2 The basis of award is the Best Value Tradeoff Process. The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers..

2. Submittal of Offers

2.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's past performance, technical approach and management capabilities necessary for successful completion of the project. Requirements stated in the RFP are minimums. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the RFP. Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in the offeror’s disqualification from award.

2.2 Offerors shall submit their proposals electronically in accordance with the Proposal Submission

Instructions in Section 00 21 00 of the solicitation. Please follow the instructions precisely as proposals must complete the upload no later than the time and date specified on Standard Form 1449. NOTE: The Louisville District is in the Eastern Time Zone.

2.3 Offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 below. All proposal materials shall be submitted electronically with a table of contents and tabbed section dividers. Proposal sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

2.4 Volume I shall be submitted electronically and include the following information:

Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance Volume I – Factor II: Management Plan

NOTE: Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or sub-factor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information. Any specified page limits will be strictly adhered to and enforced. Information submitted which exceeds the specified limit will not be evaluated.

2.5 Volume II shall be submitted electronically and shall include the following information:

Volume II – Tab A: Standard Form 1449 and Price Breakout Schedule Volume II – Tab B: Joint Venture Agreements Volume II – Tab C: Proof of Financial Ability Volume II – Tab D: Pre-Award Information

NOTE: Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or sub-factor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

2.6 Proposals: ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THIS PROPOSAL ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH DOD SAFE. No paper copies, CD-ROMs or facsimile submissions will be accepted. Electronic Proposal Submission is required through the Army’s Electronic File Sharing Service, DOD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil). The DOD SAFE Application is used to send large files to individuals that would normally be too large to send via email. There are no user accounts for DOD SAFE.

Authentication is handled via email. Anyone has access to DOD SAFE, and the application is available for use by anyone. The DOD SAFE “Getting Started Guide” has information on how to utilize the system (https://safe.apps.mil/about.php). Instructions for uploading are as follows:

1. Send an email to the Contract Specialist to receive the link to drop off your proposal. This will need to be completed three (3) business days prior to proposal due date.

a. Adam Wantland, Contract Specialist at adam.m.wantland@usace.army.mil

2. You will receive an email with the link to submit your drop-off. The link will be provided no later than two (2) business days prior to the proposal due date.

3. Short Note to the Recipients: Click the Add Files or Drag and Drop your files. For file description, enter W912QR22R0015-FIRMNAME.

4. Click Upload button to send documents. If your upload is successful, you will receive a screen alerting you that your upload was successful. You will not receive an email confirmation.

5. Guest users will need to check their email to verify their email address before the recipients will be notified. (Government-issued Common Access Cards (CACs) are not required).

File Size Limitations: Offerors are advised to follow the DOD SAFE instructions for uploading files. DOD SAFE supports delivery up to 8GB. If needed, Offerors are advised to break the files down into smaller sections in order to upload it to the system. In such cases, please divide the sections as logically as possible and be sure to clearly name the files as specified below.

File Naming Convention: To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention:

• W912QR22R0015-FIRMNAME-VOLUME I

• W912QR22R0015-FIRMNAME-VOLUME II

Each file name shall begin with the solicitation number followed by the firm’s name and a brief file description. Please see examples above.

File Organization: Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled. Font size shall be 10 or larger. Pages shall be letter sized (larger page sizes (such as 11x17 fold-outs, etc.) will be counted as two pages. Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors. Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented.

Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in each section for each factor.

Upload Completion & Deadline: Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date specified on the solicitation document. The time & date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion / delivery time & date recorded within DOD SAFE site. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g., 10MB or more) will take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the upload confirmation for their record. As noted above, offerors will not receive a confirmation email but instead will receive upload confirmation in the browser following successful upload. Submissions after the deadline will be considered late and will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208.

Electronic Files: Files shall be in their native format (i.e., doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text. Text and graphics portfolios of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by Microsoft Office or Adobe applications. Data submitted in a spreadsheet format shall be readable by MS Excel (all cells and formulas should be unlocked).

Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of Provision “FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2017),” subparagraph (e), which is found in 00 21 00 Instructions of the RFP. The Government will endeavor to honor the restrictions against release requested by Offerors, to the extent permitted under United States law and regulations.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process

3.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, User/Customer, and other required personnel will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Technical/Quality proposals will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors will not be revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is Best Value Trade-Off, as stated in paragraph 1.2 above.

3.2 The evaluation process essentially consists of four parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility determination, past performance/technical evaluation, price evaluation, and cost/technical trade-off analysis.

3.2.1 Proposal Compliance Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and that the offeror is financially capable of sustaining performance under the contract.

3.2.2 Past Performance / Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated based on overall confidence in performance, with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant past experience, and the quality of the offeror’s performance on that experience. Factor II – Management will be rated using an adjectival-based system.

3.2.3 Price Evaluation: The SSEB and Contracting Officer/SSA will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical/quality evaluation. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical/quality evaluation.

3.2.4 Cost/Technical Trade-off Analysis: After all above evaluations are complete, the Contracting Officer/SSA will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical proposals and compare prices. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then consider all factors to select the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors

4.1 Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below, listed in relative order of importance. All evaluation factors, other than cost or price, when combined are considered approximately equal to cost or price. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical approach in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions, if deemed to be within the best interest of the Government.

4.2 Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance 1st

4.3 Volume I – Factor II: Management Plan 2nd

4.5 Volume II – Pro Forma Information

Tab A Standard Form 1449 Not Rated and Price Breakout Schedule

Tab B Joint Venture Agreements Not Rated

Tab C Proof of Financial Ability Not Rated

Tab D Pre-Award Information Not Rated

4.6 Ratings:

Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Technical Assessment Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

4.7 Definitions:

1. Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

2. Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

3. Significant Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

4. Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See

FAR 15.001.

5. Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

6. Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

7. Clarifications. Limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

8. Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “PPIRS” or

“FAPPIS.”

5. Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance

5.1 Submission Requirements:

5.1.1 Provide descriptions of up to three (3) projects substantially complete or completed by the prime contractor within the last 5 years which are similar to this project in size and scope. Projects completed more than five (5) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. Projects are considered substantially complete if enough work has been performed such that it demonstrates the ability to successfully complete all phases of the project. An IDIQ contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project. Task orders may not be combined in order for the project to be considered similar. Formats for Project Details are included for your use. Use as many forms as necessary to meet the criteria. If you elect not to use the formats, all information identified on the formats is still required for evaluation of this item. Provide two references for all of the projects identified in paragraph 5.1. Reference information must include project name, location, owner's name, point of contact, telephone number, and email address. Also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. which support past performance on these projects. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire is attached for your convenience. If used, the Past Performance Questionnaire must be submitted by the offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency from the reference.

5.1.2 Projects considered similar in size shall have a square footage of no less than 20,000 Square Feet (SF) cleaned. Area cleaned can be comprised of single facility or multiple offices/facilities under the same contract.

5.1.3 Projects considered similar in scope to this project include custodial/janitorial services for offices, schools, reserve centers and/or commercial properties.

5.1.4 The prime contractor must have self-performed at least 15% of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials, with its own employees to be considered similar.

5.1.5 The following information shall be provided for each project:

a) Project Title, Contract Number, and Location.

b) Current percentage of completion and when it was or will be completed. If project is not yet complete, provide a description of work remaining to be completed.

c) Scope of the project, to include purpose/use of project.

d) Size of the project

e) Role of firm; provide a description of type of work performed and percentage of work self-performed.

f) Dollar value of the project

g) Customer Primary Point of Contact and alternate POC (name, relationship to project, agency/firm affiliation, city, state, current and correct phone number, and current and correct email address)

5.1.6 For this factor, also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. that support past performance on these projects. Any of this information that is submitted shall clearly identify to which of the submitted projects it pertains. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire is attached for your convenience. If used, the Past Performance Questionnaire must be submitted by the offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency from the reference.

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating Past Performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 17a of the Standard Form 1449. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 17a, then a signed joint venture agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the joint venture shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM). However, each party of the Joint Venture must submit their own Unique identified number (previously DUNS number) with the JV proposal.

Projects performed by contractors other than the offeror, including but not limited to teaming partners, subcontractors, sister or parent companies, and affiliates, will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a joint venture offeror as demonstrated by a signed joint venture agreement. If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a joint venture for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the joint venture may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the joint venture will not exceed three (3).

5.2. Evaluation Criteria:

5.2.1 The SSEB will evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal.

Documentation of successful completion of projects similar in size and scope to this project will be considered relevant to the similar characteristics of the RFP. Conversely, proposals that do not show documentation of successful completion of projects similar in size and scope will be considered less relevant to the similar characteristics of the RFP. A relevancy rating will be assigned to each submitted project using the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings shown above.

5.2.2 The SSEB will assign a confidence rating to each offeror based on the degree of successful performance of all recent and relevant projects identified in the proposal in response to paragraph 5.1 above. The Government will at a minimum review past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier numbers identified in the offeror’s proposal. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government also reserves the right to not contact the provided references. In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance, including for projects other than those submitted by the offeror. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved from inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

5.2.3 Additional consideration may be given for projects which contain the following features:

a) Past performance of projects for a Federal Government Customer

b) Single Projects spanning a diverse geographic area (work spanning more than one jobsite)

6. Volume I – Factor II: Management Plan

6.1 Factor II: Management Plan

6.1.1 Submission Requirements:

Provide a management plan for the project that describes the following;

• Provide a management plan for the project that describes how your labor, resources, and subcontractors will be coordinated and used to ensure successful completion of the project.

• Describe how you will manage, supervise and coordinate the subcontractors' work and who in the organization will be responsible for this management and coordination.

• Discuss home office support capabilities and home office staffing. As part of this narrative describe the scheduling process for multiple, simultaneous contracts. Also, discuss your process for submitting invoices.

6.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Comprehensive plans that demonstrate a clear understanding of the work and an ability to coordinate resources to ensure successful pursuit of the work will be considered to meet the RFP requirements.

Plans that do not demonstrate a clear understanding of the work, that do not demonstrate a capability to coordinate resources, or that do not demonstrate appropriate excess capacity will be considered to not meet the RFP requirements. Plans will be evaluated based on the level of involvement the contractor will have in the management, oversight, control, and coordination of the work performed by subcontractors.

7. Volume II – Price and Proforma Information

7.1 Tab A – Standard Form 1449.

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1449 and Price Breakout Schedule (Seed Task Order). Both of these forms are included in this solicitation.

7.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The evaluation of pricing for the SATOC contract will be based on the submitted pricing for the seed task order. The proposed overhead rates will be evaluated by the SSEB and Contracting Officer/SSA for reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. The overhead rates will be accepted as part of contract award, and become the binding rates for future orders. The seed task order price will be evaluated on base proposal plus all options. Price will also be checked for unbalancing of line items. Offerors are cautioned to distribute costs appropriately.

7.2 Tab B – Joint Venture and Mentor-Protégé Agreements

7.2.1 Submission Requirements:

Small business offerors (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSBC, etc.) submitting a proposal as a Joint Venture or Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture shall submit evidence from the Offeror's SBA Servicing Agency that the Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this specific project with the appropriate SBA Representative or Business Opportunity Specialist. Joint Venture agreements and approved 8(a) Mentor-Protégé agreements must be submitted with the proposal.

7.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Joint Venture Agreements and Mentor-Protégé agreements must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

7.3 Tab C – Proof of Financial Ability

7.3.1 Submission Requirements:

A. Financial Capability. Submit Proof of Financial Ability (Most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities). Include the name, address and telephone number of firm's banking institution.

7.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

7.4 Tab D – Pre-Award Information

7.4.1 Submission Requirements:

A. The offeror shall submit one completed copy of Representations and Certification.

B. The offeror shall submit the following information:

a) Number of years the firm has been in business

b) Name, address and telephone numbers of two credit/trade references

c) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value

C. The offeror shall submit the name, address, and Unique Entity Identifier number for any and all key subcontractors identified in the proposal.

7.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture

Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS.

CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

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

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal 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. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory

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 serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts

E VG S M U

N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance

E VG S M U

N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U

N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U

N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U

N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U

N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project?

E VG S M U

N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U

N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U

N

d) Overall customer satisfaction

E VG S M U

N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U

N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort

E VG S M U

N

c) Government Property Control

E VG S M U

N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel

E VG S M U

N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns

N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U

N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U

N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U

N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U

N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U

N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U

N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U

N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U

N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues)

E VG S M U

N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below)

Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

PWS

Specification Guide for Janitorial Services

General

A. The specifications outline herein are to be provided for any recruiting station throughout Indiana and Ohio as requested on a Task Order basis. Janitorial cleaning services shall be provided on a three day per week schedule unless it conflicts with standard services provided by the Lessor to other tenants, or as circumstances may warrant for more cleaning days. All janitorial cleaning shall be performed between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

local time, Monday through Friday, or by appointment scheduled in advance, with each recruiting service. The Contractor shall notify the designated Military Service Representative(s) (MSR) of any deviation to the previously agreed upon appointment and schedule an alternate appointment for cleaning. No keys, passwords, PINs, or entry codes to Government leased facilities are to be provided to Contractors under any circumstances.

B. The MSR shall unlock doors for the Contractor and shall be physically present and visible in the facility during all cleaning at the scheduled appointment time. The MSR shall be present in the facility a minimum of 15 minutes prior to the scheduled appointment time and wait a maximum of 30 minutes beyond appointment time for the Contractor to arrive for cleaning, after which time the Contractor shall be deemed to have not met the appointment. It should be noted that in multi-service stations, if the Contractor is actively working in another Service's area, the MSR should not leave or mark this as a no-show and should make arrangements with the Contractor on site to complete cleaning as soon as practicable. A no-show by the Contractor shall be reported immediately via the military chain of command to the Real Estate Point of Contact (POC) and must be recorded on the janitorial checklist. If the MSR is a no-show (fails to be available to open the facility a maximum of 30 minutes beyond appointment time) the contractor will not make up that day's cleaning and shall report to clean on the next scheduled appointment time with no penalty assessment. The contractor shall immediately report a no-show by MSR(s) to the Real Estate POC. No cleaning shall be accomplished on Federal Holidays. If a Federal Holiday occurs on one of the regularly scheduled cleaning days, the Contractor shall perform the cleaning on the next scheduled cleaning day. The Contractor shall ensure that cleaning services occur at least twice per week.

The eleven Federal Holidays are as follows: New Year’s Day, Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Juneteenth National Independence Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day.

Please note that most Federal employees work on a Monday through Friday schedule. For these employees, when a holiday falls on a nonworkday -- Saturday or Sunday -- the holiday usually is observed on Monday (if the holiday falls on Sunday) or Friday (if the holiday falls on Saturday).

C. Separate appointments shall be made for all periodic carpet cleaning at a time that will allow for ample time for damp carpets to dry without undue traffic from normal business activities. It is recommended that the carpet cleaning be accomplished late in the day on Friday to allow drying time. The Contractor will not be responsible for moving furniture or any items left on the floor. Prior to scheduled carpet cleaning, the MSR should remove all items from the floor, except heavy furniture items, to maximize the effectiveness of carpet cleaning. A MSR must be physically present during carpet cleaning.

D. The Janitorial Service Checklist (see enclosed) shall be posted in each Service space and common areas. The checklist shall be completed by the janitorial Contractor and signed at the completion of each week’s cleaning.

The MSR will also sign signifying that the specified work has been completed in a satisfactory manner. This checklist shall be used by the Contractor.