Attachment 04 Source Selection Plan_04.15.24.docx

Attachment 04 - Evaluation Factors and Methodology

Submission Requirements and Evaluation Minimum Requirements

1. EVALUATION FACTORS

General

Evaluation Methodology

Factor Identification – The Source Selections Evaluation Board will evaluate the proposals received in response to the project Request for Proposal (RFP). Award will be made to the offeror who represents the best value to the Forest Service on the basis of both non-cost factors and Cost/Price factors:

Non-Cost/Price Factors:

Factor 1 – Experience Factor 2 – Past Performance

When combined, these technical evaluation factors are more important than cost or price. Factor 3 – Cost/Price Factor 1: Experience

a. Submission Requirements: Submit a completed Past Performance and Relevant Experience Questionnaire (PPREQ) (RFP Attachment 05). The Offeror should provide completed PPREQ in the proposal.

To be considered relevant, projects must have been completed within the past five (5) years of the proposal issue date for this RFP. Preference will be given to those offerors that can show relevant projects.

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP.

a. Minimum Requirement: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. The assessment of the Offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. The Government may only review the first five (5) projects , in the order they were submitted in the proposal. Any projects submitted in excess of the first five (5) for Experience may not be considered.

If an offeror has no record of relevant experience, the government will not evaluate the offeror favorably on this factor.

Relevant projects where the Offeror and its proposed subcontractors previously worked together may be considered more favorably than those that have not worked together.

Proposals that contain relevant projects completed for the Forest Service may be considered more favorably.

Factor 2: Past Performance

b. Submission Requirements: If a completed Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Evaluation Report or a Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) Evaluation Report is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 3 for Experience. If there is not a completed CPARS or CCASS evaluation, then the government will use the completed Past Performance Relevant Experience Questionnaire (PPREQ) (RFP Attachment 6) for each project to perform reference checks. The Offeror should provide completed PPREQ in the proposal.

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Contractor’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance and will receive a NEUTRAL rating.

Factor 3: Cost/Price Submission Requirement:

Submit a Firm Fixed Price for the items in the Contract Line Item (CLIN) schedule for seed project(s) within the area of interest. Offerors shall submit a completed Schedule of Items for each seed project.

Source Selection Decision:

In order to select the successful offerors, we will rank the proposals from Highest to Lowest using the following ratings:

· SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror’s Non-Cost/Price Factors shown on their proposal, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

· SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror’s Non-Cost/Price Factors shown on their proposal, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

· NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror’s Non-Cost/Price Factors shown on their proposal, the Government cannot determine a confidence rating. For example: 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.

· LIMITED CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror’s Non-Cost/Price Factors shown on their proposal, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

· NO CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror’s Non-Cost/Price Factors shown on their proposal, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Evaluation Methodology:

The Government will evaluate the total price to determine fairness and reasonableness. The total prices will be evaluated but not scored. Reasonableness will be determined by comparison to other competitive prices received and to the Independent Government Estimate. If a price is disproportionally lower than other competitive prices, the price may be deemed unrealistic. If necessary, the price break downs may be analyzed to determine whether the price elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the information provided by the Offeror.

A. The degree of importance of the price will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based, or when the price is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government.

B. The Government may award a contract on the basis of initial offers received, without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. However, if considered necessary by the Contracting Officer, discussions will be conducted with only those offerors determined to have a reasonable chance for award.

C. The Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced offeror or to the offeror with the highest non-price evaluation if the Contracting Officer determines that to do so would result in the greatest value to the Government.

NC 2019 -1-FS ERFO REPAIRS SSP Rev 4.15.2024