Inactive

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announce... This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation and proposals are being requested. Requisition Number W912HZ21N0279 is being issued as a request for proposal (RFP) with intent to award as a single contract. The solicitation document and incorporated provision and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2021-02. This requirement is for full and open competition under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 811219 with a Small Business Size Standard of $22.0 million dollars. The US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg MS 39180-6199 has a requirement for the operation service of a Steris Autoclave. This is a patented instrument and only a certified company capable of support, maintenance, or upgrades to ensure manufacturing specifications are maintained is required. Service Contract should include all labor, travel, and parts. Task 1 - Perform quarterly annual inspections Task 2 - Provide unlimited on-site hardware troubleshooting and repair using OEM parts, remote technical support with an on-site response time not greater than 5 business days. The technical point of contact (POC) will contact the vendor at any time during the 12 month duration of the contracting period if the instrumentation becomes inoperable and will coordinate with the vendor to schedule quarterly instrument inspections during the contract duration. The service contractor shall successfully integrate and coordinate all activity needed to execute the service contract agreement. The contractor shall manage the timeliness, completeness, and quality of problem identification. This contract is for a new service contract for the maintenance the Steris Autoclave for a period of 12 months with option years for uninterrupted service. Manufacturer, model number, and serial number: Amsco 250LS Man SD Cab AF 240V Serial Number 032881822 *The vendor needs to be aware that any service technician must be a US citizen with a valid ID and all information must be provided prior to the visit for approval to enter the facility. P ROPOSAL PREP INSTRUCTIONS Proposals should be emailed to Amanda.Andrews@usace.army.mil by 5:00 PM Central on 25 November 2020. Overall Arrangement of Proposal –The overall proposal shall consist of three (3) parts in one volume individually titled as stated below. Page Limitation and Parts: Part Number Page Limitation Part I – Technical Proposal a. Experience 20 b. Technical Approach 40 Part II – Past Performance As Required Part III – Price As Required Part I – Technical Proposal NO PRICE INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED IN PART I. Subfactor 1: Experience The Offeror shall demonstrate relevant corporate experience related to the evaluation criteria. Relevant corporate experience is experience (within the last 5 years) that is of the same or similar scope and complexity to the work described in the Performance Work Statement, and is of the same or similar magnitude (i.e., performing services that, on an annual basis, are at least half the dollar value proposed by the Offeror to perform the Performance Work Statement’s requirements). To demonstrate its corporate experience, the Offeror shall identify up to five (5) of its most relevant contracts or efforts within the past five (5) years, and provide any other information the Offeror considers relevant to the requirements of the solicitation. Offerors shall provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the relevance of the contracts or efforts to the requirements of the solicitation. To the extent that the Offeror intends to subcontract significant portions of the effort, for each subcontractor the Offeror shall identify up to five (5) of the most relevant contracts or efforts within the past five (5) years and provide any other information the Offeror considers relevant to the requirements of the solicitation. “Significant”, in this case, means work efforts involving more than 4,000 man hours per annum. In evaluating subcontractor experience, the relevance of subcontractor experience will be determined based on the scope, complexity, and magnitude of the aspects of the work in the solicitation for which the subcontractor is proposed to perform. Therefore, the proposal shall detail clearly the aspects of the work in the solicitation that each subcontractor is intended to perform. The Offeror shall also provide information as to where the subcontractor fits into their organizational chart. Subfactor 2: Technical Approach for PWS Tasks Demonstrate understanding of requirements of Performance Work Statement. Demonstrate approach to meet technical requirements of Performance Work Statement. Ability to provide labor/skill mix to meet functional/technical requirements as outlined in Performance Work Statement Part II - Past Performance Proposal The Offeror shall demonstrate relevant past performance or affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant past performance. Relevant past performance is performance under contracts or efforts within the past five (5) years that is of the same or similar scope, complexity, and magnitude to that which is described in the solicitation. Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by Offerors in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate Offeror past performance. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all the sources provided by the Offerors, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure problems it finds in the proposal. The burden of providing thorough and complete Past Performance information remains with the Offerors. Part III - Price Proposal Offerors shall submit the Price Proposal in the following format. Conformance with the requested format for a proposal demonstrates ability to follow directions and understand requirements. Price proposals shall consist of the following basic components: Fixed price for all labor and other direct costs for each task. Copies of legal documents outlining joint ventures or partnering arrangements if applicable. The price must be provided for each task for the base year and each of the 4 optional years. RELATIONSHIP OF ACCEPTED PROPOSAL CONTENT TO THE CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS. By submission of an offer pursuant to this solicitation, the Offeror agrees that the capability presented in the proposal becomes a contract requirement upon award of a contract. No changes, substitutions, or deviations from the accepted proposal may be made without the approval of the Contracting Officer. You, as the Offeror, agree that the explicit capability presented in your proposal shall be provided under this contract at the stated price. PROPOSAL EVALUATION Proposals received in response to the Solicitation will be evaluated using the evaluation criteria set forth as seen below. Offerors shall submit their initial offers based upon terms and conditions, which they consider to be the most favorable to the Government. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose offer represents the best value to the Government, in consideration of all factors, including Technical, Past Performance, and Price, including all options. The basis for award will be an acceptable proposal, the price of which may not be the lowest. However, if the award is not based on the lowest price, the proposal must be sufficiently more advantageous than the lowest priced proposal so as to justify the payment for additional costs. When the term “offeror” is used, it is defined as a single offeror, joint venture, or a team of offerors and major sub-contractors. Proposals submitted under a formal partnering agreement or joint-venture must be accompanied by a copy of the legal document establishing such. Documentation shall be provided as established in Section L. It is the Government’s intent to award one firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract resulting from this solicitation. Selection of a Contractor will be made by an integrated assessment of the proposals submitted and in light of the following criteria. The integrated assessment will involve a determination by the Government of the overall merit of each offeror's proposal, recognizing that subjective judgment on the part of the Government evaluators are implicit in the entire process. Award will be made to the offeror whom the Government determines able to accomplish the necessary work in a manner most advantageous to the Government. The evaluation of Technical and Past Performance will be accomplished without reference to price. A price analysis will be performed. Evaluation Factors All factors and significant sub-factors that will affect contract award are listed below: Volume I – Technical Proposal Subfactor 1: Experience The Offeror’s corporate experience will be evaluated on the degree of relevance to the requirements of the Performance Work Statement on the basis of similarity in size, scope, complexity, technical difficulty, contract type and period of performance. Only recent experience (within the last 5 years) will be evaluated. Specialized experience in the repair of Steris Autoclaves using OEM parts. Specialized experience with troubleshooting Steris Autoclaves. Specialized experience inspecting Steris Autoclaves Subfactor 2: Technical Approach for PWS Tasks Demonstrated understanding of requirements outlined in the PWS. Demonstrated approach to meet technical requirements of the PWS tasks. Ability to provide labor/skill mix to meet functional/technical requirements as outlined in PWS tasks. Ability to provide OEM parts, remote technical support, and hardware and software. Volume II - Past Performance Proposal The government is seeking to determine whether the Offeror has experience that will enhance its technical capability to perform and whether the Offeror consistently delivers quality products and services in a timely and cost effective manner. The evaluation of Past Performance is a subjective assessment of the Offeror's Past Performance on contracts of a similar nature, size, scope, and complexity, utilizing a comparable number of personnel with like skills. The Government will consider the Offeror's previous and current record of contractual performance. In this context, "Offeror" refers to the proposed prime contractor and major subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as those intended to perform a critical contract function, and/or work efforts involving more than 4,000 man hours per annum. The Government will consider the combined Offeror's and proposed subcontractor's experience and performance in providing services consistent with the scope and complexity of our requirement during the last three (3) calendar years. The Government will assess the Offeror's Team to determine whether the team displays the depth and breadth of experience necessary to demonstrate a satisfactory history of performance relative to the solicitation requirements in the Scope of Work. The Government's assessment will focus on contracts that meet the following conditions: Relevance - similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. Confidence- gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts Aspects to be considered in the past performance evaluation include the Offeror’s record of: 1) conforming to specifications and standards of good workmanship; 2) adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; 3) ability to resolve technical problems quickly and effectively; 4) business-like concern for the interest of its customers; 5) establishing and maintaining adequate management of subcontractors; and 6) quality of product delivered. Any significant achievement, problem or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the source selection process. A negative finding under any element may result in an overall high-risk rating. Therefore, Offerors are reminded to include all relevant past efforts, including demonstrated corrective actions, in their proposal. In the case of an offeror without any relevant past performance history, past performance will be evaluated as "neutral". If the past performance information is negative, the offeror may be given an opportunity to provide rebuttal if it has not previously had such an opportunity. The Government will use data provided in the Offeror's proposal and data obtained from other sources. The Offeror is cautioned that while the Government will consider data from other sources, the burden of demonstrating satisfactory past performance rests with the Offeror. Volume III - Price Proposal Price/Cost Analysis will be accomplished in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 and will encompass the labor rates/ODC cost rates in a set price per package with the purpose to ensure fair and reasonable price/rate associated with the proposed labor rates and applied to the other direct costs. Evaluation Weights and Adjective Ratings Evaluation Weights: An award will be made based on the best value proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the non-price/cost factors. The Technical factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance factor and Price factor. Within the Technical factor, all subfactors are of equal importance. Past Performance is more important than Price. All of the non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price. To be considered for award, the Offeror must be determined to be acceptable in all areas. A deficiency in any of the areas could constitute a basis for rejection of a proposal. Technical Factors Rating. The rating for overall Technical, Subfactor 1 – Experience, will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable. The adjectival ratings will be evaluated utilizing the following adjectival rating methodology: Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Rating Description Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable. 3.0.3 Performance Rating Definitions. The Past Performance Risk ratings will be evaluated utilizing the following adjectival rating methodology: Relevance: Rating Definition 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. Confidence: 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. 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 be able to successfully perform the required effort. Unknown Confidence (Neutral) 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. 3.0.4. Key Evaluation Terms. The following terms are applicable to the evaluation process. 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. Strength. Any aspect of a proposal when judged against a stated evaluation criterion enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract. Significant Strength. A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance. Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Significant Weakness. A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Communications. Communications between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals and before establishment of the competitive range are exchanges, leading to establishment of the competitive range (if required). Communications shall be limited to: Offerors whose past performance information is the determining factor preventing them from being included in the competitive range. Such communications will address adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not had a prior opportunity to respond; and Offerors (other than those discussed above) whose exclusion from or inclusion in the competitive range is uncertain. Communications may be conducted to enhance Government understanding of proposals; allow reasonable interpretation of the proposal; or facilitate the Government's evaluation process. Communications cannot be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or price elements of the proposal, and/or otherwise revise the technical or price elements of the proposal. Such communications may be considered in rating proposals for the purpose of establishing the competitive range, if required. Communications shall not provide an opportunity for the Offeror to revise their proposal, but may address ambiguities in the proposal or other concerns (e.g. perceived deficiencies, weaknesses, errors, omissions, or mistakes and information relating to relevant past performance). Clarifications. Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. If award will be made without conducting discussions, Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g. relevance of past performance information, and adverse past performance) or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Relative Order of Importance Terminology. The following terminology is provided to give offerors an understanding of the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors. Significantly More Important. The factor is substantially more important than another factor. The factor is given far more consideration than another factor. More Important. The factor is greater in value than another factor, but not as much as a significantly more important factor. The factor is given more consideration than another factor. Comparatively Equal. The factor is nearly the same in value as another factor; any difference is very slight. BASIS FOR AWARD The Government intends to award one contract to the responsible offeror whose proposals are responsive to the solicitation and determined to be the best value and most advantageous to the Government. Selection of the best value to the Government will be achieved through a process of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each offeror’s proposal in accordance with the evaluation factors in the solicitation. FAR Provision 52.204-24, Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment FAR Provision 52.204-25, Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment FAR Provision 52.204-26, Covered Telecommunications Equipment or Services-Representation FAR Provision 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors Commercial Items, applies to this acquisition. FAR Provision 52.212-2, Evaluation - Commercial Items, applies to this acquisition. Offerors must include a completed copy of FAR Provision 52.212-3 Alt I, Offeror Representations and Certifications Commercial Items, with its offer. FAR Clause 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions Commercial Items, applies to this acquisition. FAR Clause 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders Commercial Items, applies to this acquisition. Supplement to FAR 52.212-5: The following FAR clauses are applicable to this acquisition: 52.222-3, 52.219-6, 52.222-19, 52.222-21, 52.222-26, 52.222-36, 52.222-37, 52.225-13 and 52.232-33. FAR Clause 252.212-7001 Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders Applicable to Defense Acquisitions of Commercial Items (Jan 2011) Supplement to FAR 252.212-7001: The following FAR clauses are applicable to this acquisition: 252.225-7001, 252.232-7003. FAR Clause 52.204-7, Central Contractor Registration FAR Clause 52.204-99, System for Award Management Registration FAR Clause 52.247-34, F.O.B. Destination The following additional FAR clauses and provisions are incorporated by reference and apply to this combined synopsis/solicitation: 52.204-13 System For Award Management Maintenance; 52.204-19 Incorporation By Reference Of Representation And Certifications; 52.219-4 Notice Of Price Evaluation Preference For HUBZone Small Business Concerns; 52.222-50 Combating Trafficking In Persons; 52.223-18 Encouraging Contractor Policies To Ban Text Messaging While Driving; 52.225-25 Prohibition On Engaging In Sanctioned Activities Relating To Iran-Certification; 52.233-3 Protest after Award; 52.233-4 Applicable Law For Breach Of Contract Claim; 252.203-7000 Requirements Relating To Compensation Of Former DoD Officials; 252.203-7002 Requirement To Inform Employees Of Whistleblower Rights; 252.203-7005 Representation Relating To Compensation Of Former DoD Officials; 252.204-7003 Control Of Government Personnel Work Product; 252.204-7012 Safeguarding Of Unclassified Controlled Technical Information; 252.209-7999 Representation By Corporations Regarding An Unpaid Delinquent Tax Liability Or A Felony Conviction Under Any Federal Law (Deviation 2012-O0004); 252.225-7002 Qualifying Country Sources as Subcontractors; 252.225-7048 Export-Controlled Items; 252.232-7010 Levies On Contract Payments The following additional FAR clauses and provisions are incorporated by full text and apply to this combined synopsis/solicitation: 52.219-28 Post-Award Small Business Program Re-representation; 52.252-1 Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference; 52.252-2 Clauses Incorporated by Reference; 52.252-5 Authorized Deviations In Provisions; 52.252-6 Authorized Deviations In Clauses; 252.204-7011 Alternative Line-Item Structure; 252.211-7003 Item Identification And Valuation Proposal is due 25 November 2020 by 5:00 PM (Central Time Zone): Proposal will be accepted by email only to: Amanda.Andrews@usace.army.mil. For information concerning this solicitation contact Amanda Andrews via email at the above email address.