Notice of Award Prescott Basin Road Maintenance - PG and E.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

P.O. Box 640 Springerville, AZ 85938-0640

(928) 333-4301 FAX: 333-5966

TTY: (928) 333-6292

File Code: 6320 Date: 08/09/2021

Re: RFQ 127EAX21Q0014 Prescott Basin Road Maintenance Award Announcement

Dear Participant:

The purpose of this letter is to provide notice of award for Request for Quotations (RFQ), referenced above, for the Prescott National Forest, Prescott Basin Road Maintenance.

Eight (8) offers were received in response to the RFQ posted to BetaSam on June 10, 2021. A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) was set up to review submitted offers in accordance with criteria set forth in FAR 15.101-1:

15.101-1 Tradeoff process.

(a) A tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.

(b) When using a tradeoff process, the following apply:

(1) All evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be clearly stated in the solicitation; and

(2) The solicitation shall state whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than cost or price.

(c) This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with 15.406.

and Section M of the solicitation:

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

SECTION M--EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M1 BASIS FOR AWARD: The intent of this Request For Quotations (RFQ) is to award a construction contract for road repairs with Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) under best value-tradeoffs format. The government intends to evaluate prices, technical capability, and past performance of task offers submitted.

M2.1. PRICE – Offerors should provide their best price with their offer submission. Government intends to award without discussions.

M2.2 TECHNICAL CAPABILITY shall be submitted in the form of a statement or document that outlines the contractor’s capability, equipment, personnel, etc., to perform the work that meets or exceeds the requirements in Exhibit 3 Supplemental Specifications.

M2.3 PAST PERFORMANCE/TECHNICAL CAPABILITY INFORMATION -- Contractors are required to submit past performance information relative to asphalt repaving services for evaluation purposes. Submit with your offer:

Customer organization (agency, firm, etc.);

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/15.406#FAR_15_406

Contract name;

Contract number;

Contract value:

Including all subcontracts Start and completion date (or projected completion date);

Provide contact information for two (2) points-of-contact including:

Name and role/job of the points-of-contact, while associated with the project;

Telephone number; and Email address.

Past Performance Rating Factors – Scoring Key Points/ Adjectives 10 Excellent – Very comprehensive, in depth, clear response. Proposal consistently meets this standard with no omissions. Consistently high quality performance can be expected.

8 Very Good – Extensive, detailed response to all requirements similar to outstanding in Quality, but with minor areas of unevenness or spottiness. High quality performance is likely but not assured due to minor omissions or areas where less than excellent performance might be expected.

6 Good – No deficiencies in the response. Better than acceptable performance can be expected but in some significant areas there is an unevenness or spottiness which might impact on performance.

4 Fair – The response generally meets minimum requirements but there is no expectation of better than acceptable performance; deficiencies are confined to areas with minor impact on performance and can be corrected during negotiation without major revision to the proposal, or serious deficiencies exist in areas with minor impact.

2 Poor – The response fails to meet one or more minimum requirements; deficiencies exist in significant areas but can be corrected during negotiations without major revision to the proposal, or serious deficiencies exits in areas with minor impact.

0 Unsatisfactory – Serious deficiencies exist in significant areas; the proposal cannot be expected to meet the stated minimum requirements without major revisions. The proposal only indicates a willingness to perform in accordance with the statement of work without specifying how or demonstrating the capacity to do so. Only vague indications of the required capability are present.

Note: The sample rating factors used are based on six levels of quality to be assessed. Strict adherence to this method limits scores to certain mathematically calculable amounts. Interpolations between these figures are not allowed.

The Contracting Officer reviewed all of the TEP’s work in assessing each offer, then the recommendation for award and the following offer was determined to be best value for award:

PG&E, 102 S. Madison Avenue, Yuma, AZ in the amount of $ 106,669.80

All Base Items and options accepted in the amount of $106,669.80

Total Price $106,669.80

Upon receipt of this email document, you will have been provided the award debriefing. If you desire an additional debriefing, you have three-days after receipt of this notice to make that request.

The Government appreciates your participating in this procurement and looks forward to your involvement in future federal procurements. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned by email or by phone

(928) 333-6278.

Sincerely, /s/ Michelle Bahr

MICHELLE BAHR

Contract Specialist cc: File

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

15.101-1 Tradeoff process.