Section L. Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors
Section L specifies the format, medium, packaging and delivery for proposal submission including:
REVIEW ACTIONS
It is critical that everyone on the proposal team review at a minimum the Sections that are most critical to their respective areas. Team members should be given a format to capture their questions and comments about the RFP’s content, instructions, and evaluation criteria. The team must quickly identify any inconsistencies, errors, or omissions so that the government can be made aware as soon as possible. In turn, the government will follow a formal Q&A procedure and provide clarifications and/or corrections via formal amendments (SF30).
Often, the government omits instructions related to minimum font sizes and alternate font faces allowed for graphics, as well as provisions for including 11x17 pages in the proposal. If the RFP is unclear, it’s best to resolve this early in the process as it can affect readability, page count, layout, graphics creation, and more. It’s generally agreed that the narrative text is easier to a Serif fonts like Times New Roman. Graphics, on the other hand, are typically easier to read when formatted with Sans Serif fonts like Arial and Arial Narrow.
Click here for a detailed list of items to look for in Section L. This list will help you identify proposal instructions inadvertently omitted by the contracting officer.
Begin by comparing the basic Section L instructions against the Section A (SF33). At a minimum, verify the submission deadline, number of copies, and delivery location (Block 9) and the government’s point-of-contact (Block 10).
Once you understand all conditions listed in Section L, check for inconsistencies with Sections C and M. Attempt to line up the instructions between Section L and M, and further with Section C. Each evaluation factor outlined in Section M should have a corresponding instruction in Section L. Section L should drive the outline and Section M should drive the detailed content.
If Sections L and M are not aligned, there will be confusion and differing opinions among your team while trying to develop a compliant and responsive proposal. In turn, it will be difficult for evaluators to conduct a side-by-side comparison at the topic level across of all offeror proposals. It is not the government’s intent to issue an RFP where Sections L and M do not align. Rather, it is a symptom of a contracting organization that lacks enough experienced contracting personnel to issue well-written RFPs. The misalignment of L and M and inconsistencies with Section C requirements can result in a protest by one or more bidders. If your team observes major alignment issues, bring it to the attention of the contracting officer so that it can be addressed by amending the solicitation.
SUCCESS TIP
Follow Section L when organizing the top-level structure of your proposal because the government evaluation sheet is likely to be structured to the outline included in Section L. Once you’ve created your proposal outline based on Section L, add lower level outline detail to accommodate additional topics or requirements included in Section M, Section C (PWS/SOO/SOW), Specs, CDRL and Section J documents. In general, do not add additional topics or subtopics beyond what is required by the RFP.
Whether it’s required or not, include a cross-reference matrix that maps your response to RFP requirements found in in Sections L, M, and C, and any other RFP important instructions. I typically make a master cross-reference matrix and include it inside the front cover of the binder, but not bound within the three binder rings so as not to confuse it with pages that count against the page limit.
Because volumes are typically evaluated by separate teams, you should avoid cross referencing to other volumes as the evaluators may not have access to all of the volumes. Make it easy for the evaluator and include the response in the requested volume.
SUBMISSION ACTION
It’s a good practice to prepare two complete sets of the delivery primary and backup. Once the primary is delivered, you can use the backup set for in-house copies. I usually make an additional two copies that automatic go to the contracts office for the contract files. A primary and back-up delivery plan means two drivers in two separate vehicles, or similar scenario if sending your proposal via courier or overnight delivery. Think it through carefully and about all of the things that can go wrong. It’s careless to risk the thousands of dollars and labor hours that go into developing a proposal by not having a back-up plan.
Be on time for the delivery. The government does not and cannot accept late proposals. Bring your own delivery receipt to be signed by the government's receiving clerk.
Remember, by pushing the deadline, you are risking thousands of dollars in B&P and the personal sacrifices of many people who helped develop the proposal.
WARNING
Watch for hidden proposal instructions and fill-in the blank items. Fool proof method: read entire section end-to-end and mark instructions and blanks with a highlighter. Be careful, ignoring Section L instructions will lead to a non-compliant proposal that will not be evaluated for content, regardless of your excellent technical solution.
Ensure that you’ve complied with any page count limits because government evaluators will not review pages beyond the limit. Further, as the acquisition staff receive and prepare proposals for the evaluators, they will remove additional pages of content that exceed the page limit. It’s OK that your final submission is 5% or 10% under the page limit, yet you’ve fully "answered the mail." Evaluators appreciate that you are showing respect for their time.
- Award
- Page size, margins, font faces and sizes for text and graphics, page numbering
- Volume titles, section titles, subtopics, and content requirements
- Printed copy specs including packaging, marking, hard copy counts and labeling
- Electronic submission specs including software, electronic uploads and storage media requirements
- Date, time, and place of submission
- Contract type
- Award criteria
- Formal communications including Q&A process and deadlines for contractors to obtain clarifications related to RFP language and requirements
- Schedule for industry day or bidder site visits
- Name of contractor(s) providing oversight and/or acquisition support
- Solicitation provisions incorporated by reference
- Authorized deviations in provisions
- Protest procedure
REVIEW ACTIONS
It is critical that everyone on the proposal team review at a minimum the Sections that are most critical to their respective areas. Team members should be given a format to capture their questions and comments about the RFP’s content, instructions, and evaluation criteria. The team must quickly identify any inconsistencies, errors, or omissions so that the government can be made aware as soon as possible. In turn, the government will follow a formal Q&A procedure and provide clarifications and/or corrections via formal amendments (SF30).
Often, the government omits instructions related to minimum font sizes and alternate font faces allowed for graphics, as well as provisions for including 11x17 pages in the proposal. If the RFP is unclear, it’s best to resolve this early in the process as it can affect readability, page count, layout, graphics creation, and more. It’s generally agreed that the narrative text is easier to a Serif fonts like Times New Roman. Graphics, on the other hand, are typically easier to read when formatted with Sans Serif fonts like Arial and Arial Narrow.
Click here for a detailed list of items to look for in Section L. This list will help you identify proposal instructions inadvertently omitted by the contracting officer.
Begin by comparing the basic Section L instructions against the Section A (SF33). At a minimum, verify the submission deadline, number of copies, and delivery location (Block 9) and the government’s point-of-contact (Block 10).
Once you understand all conditions listed in Section L, check for inconsistencies with Sections C and M. Attempt to line up the instructions between Section L and M, and further with Section C. Each evaluation factor outlined in Section M should have a corresponding instruction in Section L. Section L should drive the outline and Section M should drive the detailed content.
If Sections L and M are not aligned, there will be confusion and differing opinions among your team while trying to develop a compliant and responsive proposal. In turn, it will be difficult for evaluators to conduct a side-by-side comparison at the topic level across of all offeror proposals. It is not the government’s intent to issue an RFP where Sections L and M do not align. Rather, it is a symptom of a contracting organization that lacks enough experienced contracting personnel to issue well-written RFPs. The misalignment of L and M and inconsistencies with Section C requirements can result in a protest by one or more bidders. If your team observes major alignment issues, bring it to the attention of the contracting officer so that it can be addressed by amending the solicitation.
SUCCESS TIP
Follow Section L when organizing the top-level structure of your proposal because the government evaluation sheet is likely to be structured to the outline included in Section L. Once you’ve created your proposal outline based on Section L, add lower level outline detail to accommodate additional topics or requirements included in Section M, Section C (PWS/SOO/SOW), Specs, CDRL and Section J documents. In general, do not add additional topics or subtopics beyond what is required by the RFP.
Whether it’s required or not, include a cross-reference matrix that maps your response to RFP requirements found in in Sections L, M, and C, and any other RFP important instructions. I typically make a master cross-reference matrix and include it inside the front cover of the binder, but not bound within the three binder rings so as not to confuse it with pages that count against the page limit.
Because volumes are typically evaluated by separate teams, you should avoid cross referencing to other volumes as the evaluators may not have access to all of the volumes. Make it easy for the evaluator and include the response in the requested volume.
SUBMISSION ACTION
It’s a good practice to prepare two complete sets of the delivery primary and backup. Once the primary is delivered, you can use the backup set for in-house copies. I usually make an additional two copies that automatic go to the contracts office for the contract files. A primary and back-up delivery plan means two drivers in two separate vehicles, or similar scenario if sending your proposal via courier or overnight delivery. Think it through carefully and about all of the things that can go wrong. It’s careless to risk the thousands of dollars and labor hours that go into developing a proposal by not having a back-up plan.
Be on time for the delivery. The government does not and cannot accept late proposals. Bring your own delivery receipt to be signed by the government's receiving clerk.
Remember, by pushing the deadline, you are risking thousands of dollars in B&P and the personal sacrifices of many people who helped develop the proposal.
WARNING
Watch for hidden proposal instructions and fill-in the blank items. Fool proof method: read entire section end-to-end and mark instructions and blanks with a highlighter. Be careful, ignoring Section L instructions will lead to a non-compliant proposal that will not be evaluated for content, regardless of your excellent technical solution.
Ensure that you’ve complied with any page count limits because government evaluators will not review pages beyond the limit. Further, as the acquisition staff receive and prepare proposals for the evaluators, they will remove additional pages of content that exceed the page limit. It’s OK that your final submission is 5% or 10% under the page limit, yet you’ve fully "answered the mail." Evaluators appreciate that you are showing respect for their time.
Go to Section M | View Bibliography