W912QR25R0050 Solicitation.pdf

SEE ADDENDUM

(No Collect Calls)

W912QR25R0050 28-Feb-2025

b. TELEPHONE NUMBER

502.315.7494

8. OFFER DUE DATE/LOCAL TIME

11:00 AM 01 Apr 2025

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

BRANDON H GATZ

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 BUSINESSX

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

FAX:

TEL: 502.315.7494 SERVICE-DISABLED

VETERAN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS

8(A)

HUBZONE SMALL

BUSINESS

SIZE STANDARD:

$34,000,000

NAICS:

493110

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)

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.

W912QR25R0050

Section SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS

ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION INSTRUCT

ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Proposals: ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THIS PROPOSAL ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED

ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE PROCUREMENT INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE ENVIRONMENT

(PIEE) SOLICITATION MODULE. No paper copies, CD-ROMs or facsimile submissions will be accepted.

Electronic Proposal Submission is required through the PIEE-SOLICITATION MODULE (https://piee.eb.mil/).

Instructions for uploading proposals are as follows:

1. Register in PIEE:

a. Navigate to https://piee.eb.mil/

b. Select Register [top right]

c. Select Vendor

d. Create a User ID and Password and follow the prompts [next]

e. Create Security Questions [next]

f. Complete your User Profile Information [next]

g. Complete your Supervisor or Approving Official Information [next]

h. Complete Roles

i. Step 1. Select SOL-Solicitation

ii. Step 2. Select Proposal Manager

iii. Step 3. Click Add Roles

iv. Step 4. Fill in our Location Code (CAGE Code) [next]

i. Provide a justification for your registration [next]

j. Follow the remaining prompts to submit your registration

2. Log into PIEE and select the Solicitation Icon.

3. Enter search criteria to find the solicitation. (Search Criteria can be the complete solicitation number, Solicitation Open Date, Response Due Date, Product or Service Code, NAICS, Set Aside code, Place of Performance Zip Code, Contracting Office DODAAC, or Status)

4. The search results display. Select the Solicitation Number link to open the solicitation.

5. The solicitation displays. The information is view only.

6. Scroll down to see the Contract Information and Attachments. The Attachments can be viewed by selecting the File link. Scroll back up to the top of the screen and click the Offer tab.

7. Click the Offer tab to Add and review current offers on the Solicitation. Click the Add button to add an offer to the Solicitation.

8. Select the applicable Cage Code for which submitting the proposal for. The list is prefiltered based on the Cage in the Proposal Manager’s profile.

9. It is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention:

a. W912QR25R00050-FIRMNAME-VOLUME I

b. W912QR25R00050-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 11 or larger. Pages shall be letter sized (larger page sizes (such as 11x17 foldouts, 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 PIEE-Solicitation. 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 (Nov 2021),” 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.

10. Upload the attachments that comprise the proposal by selecting Choose Files link.

11. After entering all necessary information enter a Signature Date an Click the Signature button.

12. The Sign Document pop-up will be displayed requiring the user to enter a Digital Pin and One Time Password (OTP). Click the Sign and Submit button to continue.

13. After successfully adding the Proposal a success message of the submission will be displayed and the proposal displayed collapsed. Users may expand and view all their proposals on a Solicitation.

The Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) help desk may be reached by calling telephone number 866-618-5988 for assistance.

REPS & CERTS

REPRESENTATIONS & CERTIFICATIONS

COMPANY NAME AND ADDRESS: __________________________________________

PHONE NUMBER _____________________ FAX NUMBER _____________________

EMAIL ADDRESS ________________________________________________________

BUSINESS SIZE (select one) Large Business _____ Small Business_____ HUBZone Business_____ 8A _____ Woman-Owned ____ Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned ____ Contractor is registered with SAM: _____ YES _____ NO (See FAR 52.204-7)

TAX ID # ______________________

INDICATE Unique Entity Identifier (previously DUNS NUMBER) ___________________ (Note: See Unique Entity Identifier (FAR 52.204-7). (This is 9-digit numeric code)

CAGE NO. ____________

EVALUATION CRITERIA

EVALUATION APPROACH AND PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for the WPAFB Warehousing and Shipping Support located at Wright Patterson Airforce Base, OH. The basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off Process.

The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source

Selection Authority (SSA) 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.

1.2 The Facility to be maintained includes approximately 24,000 square feet with an additional 14,000 square feet to be added in 2024 plus inventory management of approximately 155,000 items. Shipment of items include ITAR and hazardous materials. The warehouse shall support multiple Air Force Organizations and other customers to aid operational readiness and mission availability through the following logistical support services; inventory management of individual personal equipment utilizing the Special Warfare Branch Battlefield Airmen Rapid Refresh & Replenishment (BARs) software for property accountability.

Utilizing the BARs software for the management/accountability of the gears for this effort is mandatory, receive, store, kit, package and ship individual personal equipment and maintain documentation and labeling for all items received and shipped.

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 capability for successfully completing the solicited project. Requirements stated in this Request for Proposal (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 All submissions to this proposal announcement shall be submitted electronically in accordance with the Electronic Submittal Instructions via the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Louisville District, not later than the time and date specified in Block 8 of the Standard Form 1449. Hard copy of proposals will not be accepted. Offerors are encouraged to save a copy of their confirmation of upload in the event there is a technical issue to show proof of upload and shall be submitted no later than the time and date specified in Block 8 of Standard Form 1449. Please refer to and follow the instructions specified in the Electronic Proposal Submission Instructions, attached herein. 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 section dividers. The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

2.4 Volume I shall be submitted electronically in accordance with the Proposal Submission Instructions 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 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 that exceeds the specified limit will not be evaluated.

2.5 Volume II shall be submitted electronically in accordance with the Proposal Submission Instructions and 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: Pre-Award Information

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

Proposals: ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THIS PROPOSAL ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY. No paper copies, CD-ROMs or facsimile submissions will be accepted. Electronic Proposal Submission is required through the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module https://wawf.eb.mil/.

Instructions on how to create a vendor account will be posted to sam.gov and can be located at:

https://wawf.eb.mil/ https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/ce/cap/docs/piee/PIEE_Solicitation_Module_Vendor_Access_I nstructions.pdf

Instructions on how to submit an offer will be posted to sam.gov and can be located at:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Posting_Offer.pdf

NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII)) in the File Description.)

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 I delivery time & date recorded within PIEE Solicitation Module 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: Submission shall be in a searchable Adobe PDF format.

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:

• W912QR25R0050-FIRMNAME -VOLUME I

• W912QR25R0050-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. There is a page limit of six (6) single sided 8.5 X 11 pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides or this factor. Pages shall be letter sized (larger page sizes (such as 11 x l 7 foldouts, 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.

Electronic Files: Files shall be in pdf format and 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 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 U.S. Army 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 proposals (Volume I) will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone 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 a Best Value Trade-Off, as stated above.

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Posting_Offer.pdf

3.2 The evaluation process essentially consists of four parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility review, technical evaluation, price evaluation, and price/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.

3.2.2 Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the Volume I proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated using Tables 1 and 2 below. The rating will be 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. Factor II – Management Plan will be rated using Table 3 below.

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

3.2.4 Price/Technical Trade-off Analysis: After all the 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 price. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. 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.

4.2 Volume I – Factor I – Past Performance 1st

4.3 Volume I – Factor II –Management Plan 2nd

4.4 Volume II - Price and Performance Information

Tab A Standard Form 1449 and Price Breakout Schedule Not Rated Tab B Joint Venture Agreement Not Rated Tab C Pre-Award Information Not Rated

4.5 Ratings:

Evaluators will apply the one (1) adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

TABLE 1

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.

TABLE 2

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.

TABLE 3

Combined Technical / Risk Assessment Ratings Adjectival Rating Description Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

4.6 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 offeror’s 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 offeror’s 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. Clarification. 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 on any evaluation. Adverse past performance that must be addressed with Offerors includes unfavorable comments received from sources such as those received from respondents from past performance questionnaires or interviews that have not been finalized within a formal rating system.

9. Risk. As it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

5.0 Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance

5.1 Submission Requirements:

5.1.1 Provide descriptions of up to three (3) projects that are currently ongoing or have been completed by the

Prime Contractor within the last five (5) years (from the solicitation issue date) that 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. An Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (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.

5.1.2 Projects considered similar in size would be warehouse building of at least 15,000 square feet.

5.1.3 Projects considered similar in scope to this project include, warehousing management to include facilities and physical security management. Inventory Management/Hand Receipt like systems (receipt, store, ship and account for individualized personal equipment. Advanced Excel users (capable of running functions, pivot tables, and graphing).

5.1.4 Additional consideration may be given for projects that demonstrate experience with any of the following elements:

A) Experience working with USACE.

B) Battlefield Airmen Rapid Refresh and Replenishment (BARs) software experience.

C) Shipment of items in accordance with International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) D) Shipment of hazardous materials.

5.1.5 The following information shall be provided for each project:

a) Project Title, Contract Number, and Location.

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

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

d) Dollar value of the project.

e) 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 Provide two references for all the projects identified in paragraph 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.1.3. Reference information must include project name, location, owner's name, point of contact, telephone number, and email address.

For this factor, also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. which 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. For each project, the offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s corrective action.

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 17a of the Standard Form 1449. 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 more than one contractor is listed in Block 17a, then a signed joint venture 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 (JV) must submit their own Unique Entity Identifier Number (formerly known as DUNS) with the JV proposal. Projects performed by other contractors than the offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a JV offeror as demonstrated by a signed JV agreement. If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a JV for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the JV may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the JV will not exceed three (3).

5.2 Evaluation Criteria:

5.2.1 The SSEB will first evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal in response to paragraph 5.1 above. By using the criteria identified above, the SSEB will determine how relevant a past project is when compared to the scope, size, and magnitude of effort and complexities of the solicited project. A relevancy rating will be assigned to each submitted project using the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings table (Table 1) above.

5.2.2 The SSEB will next review how well the offeror performed on those projects. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government may review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including similar projects other than those submitted by the offeror. 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. 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 The SSEB will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate this information into the performance confidence assessment. The SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessment table (Table 2) above, based on the SSEB’s assessment of (1) the degree of the offeror’s recent, relevant experience, and (2) how well the offeror performed that experience.

6.0 Volume I – Factor II: Management Plan

6.1 Submission Requirements:

Provide a management plan narrative for the project that describes how your labor, resources, subcontractors, and material suppliers will be managed, supervised, coordinated, and used to ensure successful completion of the project. Additionally, the Management Plan shall include the following information:

• Discuss and provide your plan and approach to seamlessly assuming responsibility for current warehouse operations without interfering with current operations as described in Section 8.0 (Transition In) of the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

• Discuss and provide your plan and approach to avoid International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) violations.

• Discuss and provide your plan for immediate/emergency response to real world contingencies within 24 hours.

• Discuss and provide your plan for managing subcontractors during contract performance.

• Describe your process for managing, coordinating, and tracking changes that arise on an ADHOC basis.

• Identify significant project challenges/areas of risk and provide your plan for mitigating these risk/constraints during contract performance.

There is a page limit of six (6) single sided, 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides for this factor. Any information that exceeds these page limits will not be evaluated.

6. 2 Evaluation Criteria:

Narratives will be evaluated based on the level of understanding of the work and the involvement the contractor will have in the management, oversight, control, and coordination of the work performed. The management plan will be rated by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) using the adjectival ratings listed in Table (3) and Combined Technical/Risk Rating provided in Section four (4). Narratives that demonstrate a clear understanding of the project requirements and provide a thorough approach for successfully managing the solicited project and/or mitigating project specific risk items, may be rated more favorably by the SSEB.

7.0 Volume II - Price and Proforma Information

7.1 Tab A - Standard Form 1449 and Proposal Price Breakout Schedule.

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1449 and the Proposal Price Breakout Schedule.

7.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The price will be evaluated on base proposal plus all options. The price will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. Price will also be checked for unbalancing of line items.

Offerors are cautioned to distribute costs appropriately.

7.2 Tab B – Joint Venture Agreements

7.2.1 Submission Requirements:

If more than one contractor is listed in Block 17a, or the offeror listed in Block 17a is a joint venture (JV), the offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a legal entity separate from the individual joint venture members. However, each member of the JV must submit its own Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) with the proposal. A copy of the offeror's signed joint venture agreement shall be submitted with the proposal.

In addition to the joint venture agreement, small business offerors submitting a proposal as a Mentor-

Protégé JV under the SBA Mentor-Protégé program (MPP) shall submit a copy of their SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé agreement.

7.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

Small business joint venture agreements and must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations in order for an offeror to be eligible for any small business set-aside acquisitions and/or small business related price preference.

7.3 Tab C – 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

NOTE: If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for all joint venture members.

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. THE

GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS

FORM.

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 rating is appropriate when a significant event occurred from which the Contractor had trouble overcoming and that 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 from which the contractor had trouble overcoming and that 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 THAT 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; efforts to keep lines of communication open)

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 E VG S M U 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-

E VG S M U N

up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets, and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

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 a Government contract, has it 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 N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying the 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 that may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

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 rating is appropriate when a significant event occurred from which the Contractor had trouble overcoming and that 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 from which the contractor had trouble overcoming and that 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 THAT 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…